ON THE TRAIL
A Stop-Clark Movement? What used to be known as the stop-Dean movement has transformed a bit into a stop-Clark campaign.

By Chuck Todd
NationalJournal.com
Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2004

DES MOINES, Iowa -- With the countdown clock to Iowa about to change from days to hours, there is a growing consensus that the Democratic race will quickly become a two-person February sprint between former Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vt., and retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D).

What used to be known as the stop-Dean movement has transformed a bit into a stop-Clark campaign.

What used to be known as the stop-Dean movement has transformed a bit into a stop-Clark campaign. And where does this stop-Clark drive begin? In Iowa, of course, the one state Clark opted to avoid.

Since Dean's initial surge to the front-runner position, every campaign, including Clark's, has acknowledged that at some point this nomination fight was going to become a two-person race. All of the candidates have resigned themselves to the fact that Dean will be one of the finalists. Consequently, it is the race to be the last other candidate standing that's suddenly heating up.

The Dean camp has been nervous about Clark for weeks. In fact, when Clark first entered the race, Dean's team was the first to admit he'd be a major factor. The other campaigns were slower in acknowledging Clark's potential strength, and now it appears many are regretting it because without a stunning upset in Iowa at this point, a Dean-Clark showdown appears inevitable.

But the beauty of conventional wisdom is that it's usually created in order to be debunked down the road. So here's a look at the campaigns' various stop-Clark strategies:

• Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: Outside of Dean, the candidate most engaged in a stop-Clark campaign is the one-time New Hampshire front-runner. Anything short of a victory in New Hampshire was supposed to sound Kerry's death knell. That said, the campaign fell so far behind Dean in the Granite State that a surge now to make Kerry's New Hampshire loss better than expected may keep the Massachusetts senator alive for another week or two.

But Clark's nonstop New Hampshire advertising and campaigning have made Kerry a third-place also-ran in New Hampshire. Kerry's best chance to overtake Clark at this point is a better-than-expected showing in Iowa. What would be better than expected? First or second -- and that's the flaw in the Kerry plan to stop Clark. Surpassing either Dean or Gephardt seems like a tall order because of the institutional organizational strength each Iowa co-front-runner has. Kerry doesn't have any major union infrastructure helping him, and that alone could stop him. Still, Kerry has one thing going for him -- an interest by Dean's campaign in seeing him catch a little fire in Iowa. Could some crazy Joe Trippi-Iowa-jujitsu help Kerry overtake Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt (D)? Anything is possible.

• Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.: His challenge is not dissimilar to Kerry's. He must figure out how to break through the Dean vs. Gephardt storyline in Iowa to get a bump in New Hampshire. Without a major Iowa breakthrough, it will be hard to get the press to focus on anything outside the Dean-Clark showdown.

Is a surprise second place in Iowa realistic for Edwards? At this point, it seems unlikely, and yet Edwards has to figure out how to get incredibly close. A very close third maybe, just maybe, might be enough to make the media give him a second look in New Hampshire. But with so much ground to make up on Clark in the state, Edwards might not have enough time, even with some media attention. To gain real momentum, Edwards would have to divert from his all-positive primary message, and if one is to believe the Edwards campaign, it's that message that has given him newfound traction in Iowa. Edwards could be in a box that he just can't break out of in time to stop Clark before Clark ends up beating him in South Carolina.

• Gephardt: Of the three major contenders attempting to stop Clark's rise in New Hampshire, Gephardt has the easiest plan: Win Iowa. Overtake Dean by even a single delegate in Iowa, and Gephardt gets a bounce that's far better than anything he experienced in 1988. Of course, there's another path Gephardt could follow that isn't there for the other major contenders -- he could skip New Hampshire and move straight to South Carolina. An Iowa win, coupled with his high-profile endorsement from leading South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn (D), could catapult Gephardt into the finals with Dean. One of the toughest decisions Gephardt will have to make if he wins Iowa is this New Hampshire-South Carolina decision.

• Dean: Believe it or not, the campaign that might be the most intent on developing a stop-Clark strategy is Dean's. The longer it takes for a one-on-one race to develop, the more likely Dean won't be stopped. The Dean camp would love nothing more than to see Kerry pull the upset in Iowa and edge ahead of Gephardt for second -- breathing a tiny bit of life into the Massachusetts Democrat heading into New Hampshire. The way the Dean campaign sees it, they already overtook Kerry once in a one-on-one showdown earlier in the summer -- there's no reason that if they're pitted against him again in the finals, they won't blow him away again.

These scenarios aside, it's still a good bet that a two-man race between Dean and Clark is inevitable. When examining it, we're struck by the similarities between this showdown and the one between President Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in 2000. Like Bush, Dean leads the money primary. Like Bush, Dean is running a 50-state campaign, meaning cherry-picking primary states is out of the question. Like Bush, Dean is being painted as the less electable candidate for the general election. Like Bush, Dean has A-list surrogates to help him in states down the road should Clark get traction. Like Bush, Dean has a prickly relationship with the media. Like Bush, Dean is facing a media that is in the midst of propping up his potentially toughest foe.

Finally, like Bush, Dean has a potential rival in Clark who could be vulnerable to basic party loyalty, which eventually dooms the insurgency.

There are a few things Clark has going for him, though, that McCain did not. The biggest is money. Unlike McCain, Clark is already on the air in late-February states (like Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin) in order to plant the seeds for a national boomlet should New Hampshire go as planned. McCain had to wing it from primary to primary post-New Hampshire. Also, unlike McCain, Clark has some members of the party establishment actually pulling for him (i.e. the Clintons). And unlike McCain, there are enough February primaries that he can withstand a loss or two to Dean as long as he makes it up by winning another state.

The upcoming February sprint to the nomination could be an interesting roller coaster.

Chuck Todd is editor-in-chief of The Hotline, National Journal's daily briefing on politics. His e-mail address is ctodd@nationaljournal.com.

More truth about Bush's lies

Ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was fired for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts. See, O'Neill lacked Washington smarts and refused to do the "leaving for personal reasons" crap. It got nasty. And now he helps Ron Suskind write a damaging book on the Bush Administration, and then talked to 60 Minutes.

"O'Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

"At cabinet meetings, he says the president was 'like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection,' forcing top officials to act 'on little more than hunches about what the president might think.'

"He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn't his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.

"'From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,' says O'’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“'From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,' says Suskind. 'Day one, these things were laid and sealed.'

"As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as 'Why Saddam?' and 'Why now?' were never asked."

So what was BushCo's reply? To discredit him with unnamed sources saying he was ineffective and gaffe prone, they sent in life-long Dubya pal and chief fundraiser in 2000 (now Commerce Secretary) Don Evans to say Bush is a strong leader in cabinet meetings. As Paul Krugman points out they failed to discredit or disprove what O'Neill said about the war or tax cuts, because it is the truth.

"How can Howard Dean's assertion that the capture of Saddam hasn't made us safer be dismissed as bizarre, when a report published by the Army War College says that the war in Iraq was a "detour" that undermined the fight against terror? How can charges by Wesley Clark and others that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq be dismissed as paranoid in the light of Mr. O'Neill's revelations?"

My personal favorite is that they are already investigating O'Neill for a potential securty breach given that the word "Secret" appeared stamped on the illegible documents shown on a 60 minutes graphic. Yet at the same time, they sure took their sweet time with a real security breach when ex-Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was outed as an undercover CIA operative when he spilled the beans on Cheney's trumped up "evidence" of Saddam's ambitions.

In other maddening news about how BushCo is taking this country down the tube, the International Monetary Fund, who often chides 3rd world countries or poorer countries like Mexico, Argentina, or Bukino Faso for its budgeting to get loans, wrote a scathing report about its concerns about the US budget under George W. Bush.

The IMF is largely controlled by the US and EU because those who put in the most $ get the most say on how to spend it. But, unfortunately for Bush, they also happen to be staffed with Economists. In their report that warned of the dangers to the global economy posed by the United States' lack of spending discipline, its reliance on foreign creditors, and its failure to plan adequately for future government liabilities.

Meanwhile, the new Treasury Secretary, John Snow, seems to have no trouble lying. Saying we can go to the Moon, Mars, give Prescription Drugs to the elderly, occupy Iraq and Kabul, keep massive tax cuts for the rich, oh and halve the decifit in Bush's second term.

"In the 2000 campaign," notes Slate's Daniel Gross, "Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a 'lockbox' to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations—about $160 billion per year!

"By so doing, Washington spenders have masked the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004—which began in October 2003—if you factor out the $164 billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own projections (the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008." And we know that those numbers are low. Which means were in even worse shape than we think, for now and the future."

OK this is too depressing, let's talk about the (hopefully) 44th president of the US.


SUSA says: Clark coming on strong. Plus: more proof that Clark is more electable than Dean

Arizona (PDF) (12/16 results in parenthesis) MoE 4.7%

Clark 39 (29)
Dean 32 (31)
Lieberman 8 (10)
Kerry 5 (7)
Gephardt 4 (9)
Other 7
Undecided 4

New Hampshire (PDF) (12/14-16 results in parenthesis) MoE 4.7%

Dean 35 (45)
Clark 26 (11)
Kerry 13 (15)
Lieberman 9 (11)
Edwards 6 (6)
Gephardt 3 (4)
Other 5
Undecided 2

Missouri (PDF) MoE 4.7%

Gephardt 37
Dean 19
Clark 15
Kerry 6
Other 6
Undecided 6
Lieberman 5
Edwards 5

Rasmussen's national poll Notes that "In the "Red States," those carried by George W. Bush in the last election, Clark is the favorite of 21%, Dean is the choice of 15% and Edwards attracts support from 12%. In the Blue States (carried by Gore), Dean leads Clark 27% to 13%."

Notes from the field: Derry redux

This Saturday, like last Saturday, I went to the Derry field office of the Wesley Clark campaign to volunteer, even with the frigid temps. In short, you can still feel the movement, even if the press has started their nitpick routine on the General.

The only major difference this time, I was at a different transfer station. Last time, I translated transfer station as dump or rubbish pile, now I think recycling center might be more apt. Anyway, I went to the Derry one this time (last time was nearby Salem) with a fellow draftee and staffer. I held up the "Braving the Cold for Wes Clark" poster which had a hunck taken out of it, presumably from the large gusts of wind that come when cars whip past you in this weather. Two-thirds of all cars gave us wave, many of which were the fingers-just-off-the steering-wheel-I-see-you-there type, but there was also lots of thumbs up and hearty waves with a smile and a full 90 degree turn of the head to say hello. most of the last third were actual honks, which always got us in a good mood and a handful of thumbs-down at most. (out of dozens to hundreds of cars/trucks)

We were positioned a few hundred feet outside the station, on the only road going in and out of the station, next to the communal sandpile. The staffer with me's unofficial duty was to see if a particular guy was working the booth of the transfer station whom the female Derry staffer had taken a liking too. Unfortunately, it was a crusty old man instead.

A bit later, a volunteer from Yale came by with his own handmade sign "Honk for Wes" and we got more honks out his hop and beg routine. Again, this was a good honk and wave result given it was three guys on the side of the road. (girls tend get many more honks as a response, partly due to their dances and cheers)

Some real characters showed up to showel sand near us. One said, "If you showel sand for me, I'll vote for Clark." and our Yalee hapily oblidged. The man used the opportunity to ask how Clark stands on various issues and we pointed him to the website for more details. Another old man, asked us where we were from. Upon hearing that we were from MA and CT, he promptly called us "fur-in-ers" or Foriegners for those of you who don't speak wannabe hick (I say wannabe because this old man turned out to be originally from OH, Cincinati I think). This Bush supporter said he was sick and tired of all these people calling him and mailing him stuff and knocking on his door. "I can't even turn on the TV any more without watching one of those damn commercials," he said.

The man went on questioning the democratic candidates "business sense." When we pointed out that Bush failed two companies, couldn't find oil in TX, whereas Clark has a masters in Economics from Oxford, taught it at West Point, was an Investment Banker for about 1.5-2 years, he muttered something but couldn't be dissuaded.

After he left, we decided to head back to the office. "That made my whole time in NH," chirped my friend and staffer. There we met up with the other 10-15 folks who came up to volunteer in Derry (there was at least 70 volunteers in Manchester that day to drop off DVD copies of the Clark bio film "American Son"). Another group had gone out to the Salem transfer station and managed to hand out Clark bars to lots and lots of poeple wanting in line. "The Clark bars really work," a classmate of mine said, "too bad they're such crappy candies." However, I noted, I am glad we aren't working for "General Snickers"

This classmate is a very intense, smart person (in a Brown University sort fo way) whom I took an education policy class with. He is taking off the semester or year to work for Clark, and I had no idea he was into the General. In the Union-Leader gpt 3 letters to the editor in to 2 Howard Dean 3 Bush 1 Kerry and 1 Kucinich.

In summary it was a very good day and turn out considering the weather. Clark is now up 9 points on Kerry and within the margin of my 15 point spread of Dean. If Kerry keeps going down, Clark could narrow the Dean gap to maybe 10 points or so, and Lieberman might get 3rd.

But at what a cost! Lieberman's campaign can't afford to pay the phone bills in any state besides NH, which is also why his whole staff is up there. Even if he does get third in NH (which I don't think will last, Kerry will tick up after 2nd or 3rd in IA), he has no money to do anything in the February 3rd states. I can't wait until him and Edwards get out, becuase it is really getting annoying these days. Almost as annoying Clark is getting to Dean.

At the same time, Dean is trying to beat back alot of attacks against him, including new information that Dean took money from special interests for speeches when governor of Vermont and complaints that he had no minorities in his cambinet during this nearly dozen years as governor of one of the whitest states-- 98%-- in the country. Instead of doing the brave political thing and note this difficulty of finding qualified minority Vermonsters, Dean, the son of a milieu worker, noted that he has the endorsements of more members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus than any other presidential hopeful.

Rev. Al Sharpton ridiculed that, saying in last night's debate, "I don't think that answers the questions ... I think you only need co-signers if your credit is bad." Thanks Al, for reminding me why you are around. What a great line.

Putting the Reality in Television

My favorite reality TV of late is NBC's The Apprentice a purposely campy Donald Trump chooses a new president for a company show.

The great part about it is not just that it cuts through the crap of what the show is really about (bickering and backstabbing and butt-kissing vs. "surviving" on an island) but that I know that at least one of the cartoon-like characters is really actually how they seem on TV.

If you saw the show last night after Friends, you will know whom I speak, if not, watch it next week and pay attention to Sam the guy who tried to rent us his girlfriends apartment my fiancee and I Summer 2002 in suburban (MoCo) DC. I say tried because he was extremely forceful in his sales push, and the place was crap (both in quality and price) compared to what we ended up getting about a block away.

Poor Sam, he really tries way too hard. I am still trying to figure out how he has a girlfriend, because this is the kind of guy that would try to "close the sale" on that too.

Since Trump gets to decide who to fire (and the contestants get to choose the 3 he has to choose from) the dynamics are different than a normal reality show.

Everyone hates Sam, yet his aggressiveness and "spunk" got him a second chance this week. No doubt producers will pressure "The Donald" to keep Sam as long as possible, since the kid makes great TV. And gives used car salesmen a bad name, but that's another story.

Now on to politics

Rumor has it that John Kerry is set to get IA Sen. Tom Harkin's endorsement this afternoon in a coup that not only could singlehandedly revive Kerry's campaign but doom Howard Dean and makes sense for Harkin, if you think about it.

The "Hamlet of the Heartland" is liberal and take no prisoners like Dean, but after Gore and Bradley's endorsement, he looks like small potatoes and just following the crowd if he were to support him. And even if he won, Deanies could still say, we didn't need you plusably. Gephardt has Unions behind him that Harkin will need in 2008 when he runs for reelection, but again, it is a bit late for Harkin to get in and make enough dent or news out of it. Plus, even if Dick wins IA, were does he win after that? MO certainly but SC MI and others are doubtful since he has very little staff or money elsewhere, at least compared to Clark and Dean. So if Tom bets on Dick, he may get (sorry for the horrible pun) screwed.

By backing Kerry in constrast, there will be huge stories about it "Is this Howard's End?" and "Kerry the Komeback Kid" or KtKK. And Kerry, one could argue, has enough surge in IA to actually win it (see polls below), if he got the strong orginization backing of his fellow senator. That is of course assuming that the latest Dean gaffe kills him "If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests in both parties" - Dean in 2000 on Canadian TV. He added, "The special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes." More fun Dean quotes, "I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world," and the Iowa Caucuses are "a waste of time." Couldn't agree with you more, Governor.

In other bad press for the Doctor, The Dean campaign has fired "two low-level volunteers who went into Kerry's campaign offices pretending to be average voters." Kerry claims it is a "Paid Dean Staffer" Afterall, how do you fire two "low-level volunteers?"

If Kerry actually won IA, both Gephardt and Dean would be toast, although Dean would still be strong in NH. Perhaps Kerry's supporters would come back to him, and the anti-Dean vote would coalesse around Kerry. Even better, it becomes a Kerry-Clark race, since Dean's winabilty is a big part of his support. [Dream on -Ed.]

Survey USA has this questioned result for the Iowa Caucuses:

Dean 29 (43)
Gephardt 22 (23)
Kerry 21 (15)
Edwards 17 (10)
Other 8 (?)
Undecided 3 (?)

KCCI's Research 2000 IA Poll of Dem caucus voters found Dean had 29% support; Dick Gephardt 25%; John Kerry 18%; Undecided 13% and John Edwards 8% [ That sounds more like it -Ed]

This all means that turnout will be key for all three and that Sen. Edwards should take his VP campaign on the road.

According to the Arizona Republic, Clark "hazed" incoming West Point Plebes: "Instead of sending us on fool's errands or making us repeat useless memorized information, he asked questions about current events." Oh boy, that's rough. I do that to my fiancee too.

And now for something completely different

Mike Gibby: "Something needs to be done. Immigrants are taking all of the good jobs." Mark Goldy: "Please. Name one good job taken by an immigrant." Gibby: "Governor of California" ("Late, Late Show").

as Clark's NH gap b/w him and Kerry widdens, Dean thinks about shifting is IA supporters to Kerry to hurt Clark

WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
1/5-7 1/4-6 1/3-5 1/2-4 1/1-3 12/31-1/2 12/30-1/1 12/31-29
Dean 35% 36% 37% 39% 39% 38% 37% 37%
Clark 18 16 14 12 12 13 13 13
Kerry 12 13 14 14 14 14 15 16
Lieberman 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6
Gephardt 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6
Edwards 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
Kucinich 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2
Braun - - - - - - - -
Sharpton - - - - - - - -
Undec. 16 17 16 17 16 18 19 16

Meeting the Press

I told you yesterday that Clark is in second place in New Hampshire, but I waited until today to tell you about the recent media re-discovery of Clark, now that his campaign is hitting its stride.

Slate's Chris Suellentrop wrote two articles about Clark, one on his tag-along tale of Clark's rhetoric and support in New Hampshire: "As a candidate, Clark has improved his skills dramatically since I watched him speak in September. He's smoother, more coherent, and more concise. He's also willing to give voters at least mildly unpopular answers."

The second is on Dean's dirty tricks flyer that attacks Clark, and the General's glee that he is being attacked.

"On one side, the flyer reads "WESLEY CLARK: PRO-WAR," followed by a list of the general's much-discussed statements in support of the congressional Iraq war resolution. It's the stuff that gave Clark grief when he entered the race in the fall: He advised Rep. Katrina Swett in October 2002 to vote for the resolution, and he told reporters this past September that "on balance, I probably would have voted for it." On the other side, the flyer reads "WESLEY CLARK: REAL DEMOCRAT?" followed by Clark's much-discussed statements in praise of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Bush Cabinet, plus evidence of his pro-Republican voting record in presidential elections (until 1992)."

Dr. Hypocrisy strikes again. Wasn't it Dean who whined, "Terry, make them stop picking on me!" and said "We Democrats shouldn't attack each other." When he is being attacked? The good doctor is also being muzzled by his staff to ensure that he won't say any more stupid stuff and make the gap between him and Clark narrow nationally and in New Hampshire.

In response to the flyer, Clark told the Times:

"Asked about his voting history by a voter at the forum, General Clark said, 'I never was a Republican.'

He added that many in the military did not belong to a political party but chose candidates who were 'strong on national defense.' [like most Reagan Democrats]

'After the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party and some of the presidential candidates seemed to be wobbling all over the map on being strong for America,' General Clark said. 'So I voted for people who would take care of the country.'

General Clark, who repeatedly refers to himself as 'a leader, not a politician,' said of the critical flier, 'I guess that's what professional politicians do.'"

Dean can't call Clark a "Washington Democrat" this is an outsider vs. outsider race. Clark can even claim he is more of an outsider, since he has never run for an office, unlike Dean's dozen years in the Governor's chair of puny Vermont.

Tried to get a job from this last profiler, but he didn't hire me, and I am not upset, because he does a better job articulating why I like Gen. Clark:

"While many of the Democratic presidential candidates might agree with the tenor of Clark's broad [foreign] policy guidelines, it's not clear that they would be willing to back up the soft side of U.S. power with its harder edge. With Clark, on the other hand, there is little doubt. It was Clark, after all, who during the Bosnian war demanded--to the point of hectoring a furious superior officer--that bombing continue until Milosevic withdrew from Sarajevo. And it was Clark, together with a handful of Clinton officials, who pushed for military intervention in Kosovo when the Pentagon brass and many NATO leaders preferred to do nothing. Clark, unlike his rivals, has actually led wars, not just voted for them."

Turning Point: Clark's in 2nd in NH

I know I had said with each passing day, Kerry sinks and Clark rises, but now it is offical:

WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
1/4-6 1/3-5 1/2-4 1/1-3 12/31-1/2 12/30-1/1 12/31-29
Dean 36% 37% 39% 39% 38% 37% 37%
Clark 16 14 12 12 13 13 13
Kerry 13 14 14 14 14 15 16
Lieberman 7 7 6 6 6 6 6
Gephardt 6 6 6 6 5 5 6
Edwards 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
Kucinich 2 2 2 3 2 2 2
Braun - - - - - - -
Sharpton - - - - - - -
Undec. 17 16 17 16 18 19 16

Pollster Dick Bennett: "Clark's strength remains among men age 45 and older and he has a new television ad running in New Hampshire that gained very favorable playback from women on Monday. If the trend to Clark continues and he is able to improve among women age 45 and older, he will be alone in second place." Bennett notes "Clark was in front of Kerry" by 4 points in 1/4 polling, and by 6 points on 1/5 (release, 1/7).

Kerry hopes that second place in IA will resurrect him in NH. Fat chance. At best, he would get 2nd place. Dean's 35-40% is pretty solid, but the question is, what part of Kerry's 13 points is solid? Could JFK come up with only 10%? Although Dean's lead is still huge (20 points) I think Clark can chip into that lead. The media are chomping at the bit for another guy to write about.

Boston Globe's Lehigh writes, A "sense of skittishness" about Howard Dean is "beginning to stir" in NH. Whether that "doubt freshens" to a "gaffe-driven gust" or is "merely an evanescent breeze of unease" remains to be seen, but "creeping disquiet" Dean came up "often" in conversations with more than "three-dozen voters" on 1/2 and 1/5.
The "misgivings don't appear strong enough" to "deprive" Dean of a NH win. But they do "raise the prospect" of a "strong second place" finish for another candidate. The two candidates voters are "looking most closely at" as "Dean alternatives" -- John Kerry and Wesley Clark -- have "very different ideas" about how to "contest" NH.
Clark has a "clearer sense" of NH "momentum," drawing "large crowds" at events. His campaign thinks he can "win" by "focusing like a laser" on NH. He's now in the "midst" of an "11-day stay," and he plans to come back in "midmonth" and "remain" through the 1/27 primary (1/7).

now there's proof

The secret is out, I am a Clark supporter. Here's the picture on the Clark event finder. I am the tool not looking straight into the General's eyes. But at least I figured out where the camera was.

After you are done with that, see how much you would save under Clark's tax plan. It is a pretty clear, simple but powerful plan, offering tax cuts for most and eleminating taxes for 34 million Americans.

Dean's boo-boo

Just a week ago, Howard Dean was complaining that Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe wasn't doing enough to protect him from the critisim of his rivals. Well one rival who has stayed above the fray and has been very diplomatic when talking about his fellow Democratic Party candidates is now entering Dean's crosshairs apparently.

The Arizona Republic has a story where some reporters by mistake were allowed to listen in on an internal Dean campaign conference call about the next strategy the Dean campaign should use. A quote from the article:

"Another staffer indicated that in a survey of voters Monday by telephone, people expressed concern that "this guy (Dean) is indecisive" and Bradley, a former Hall of Fame player in the National Basketball Association and a three-term senator from New Jersey, could help counter that.

"The Bradley message could be, like, (Dean) knew where he stood on the war, is still a Democrat, takes . . . positions, blah, blah, blah," the staffer said.

The next day, the speaker said, "surrogates" for Dean, both local and national, could "then hit Clark on the flip side of the argument: that he's indecisive, didn't know what party he's with, doesn't know his position on the war," she said.

The Clark campaign has decided to respond with the following:

Yesterday, the Dean campaign inadvertently revealed to reporters its secret strategy to discredit General Clark. The strategy was reported in today's Arizona Republic.

As the Republic reports, the Dean camp plans to use Bill Bradley's endorsement to counter the perception among New Hampshire voters - apparently evident in the Dean polling - that Governor Dean is "indecisive," and they plan to use both former Senator Bradley and other surrogates to attack General Clark.

Clark Campaign Communications Director Matt Bennett responded to this report:

"The Dean camp's secret back-room plotting to have Bill Bradley and others attack Wes Clark isn't a bit surprising. Governor Dean seems to like others to do his heavy lifting - just last week Howard Dean asked Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe to protect him from the criticisms of his rivals. The fundamental difference between Governor Dean and General Clark is that Howard Dean is a politician, and Wes Clark is a leader."

"Wes Clark has run a war, making life and death decisions every day. If the Dean Campaign wants to have a debate about decisiveness, we're ready."

Taking the flag back

Clark, when asked if his plan allows low-income Americans to benefit from gov't without paying taxes: "No, because I don't think that's the correct syllogism. I will tell you that people from poorer families are paying for the cost of the war because if you look at who's fighting it, our armed forces is made up disproportionately of people from the least advantaged families in America. They're paying for it with their sons and daughters, with their relatives, their brothers and sisters who are over there fighting, while by and large, the wealthiest families do not have their own sons and daughters engaged in this fight. So, don't ever make the argument that the poorer people in America aren't contributing to this country when they don't pay these income taxes" ("Big Story," FNC, 1/5).

Letting air out of the balloon

Last night on Hardball General Clark wasn't asked about his groundbreaking Tax Plan, of course, but about the Clinton Impeachment.

That's so 1998 Chris. I guess the point was to test Clark's Clinton loyalty because Mathews is a Clinton-Love-Hater and thinks this is Clark's only true weakness-- his reliance on Bubba. Sure enough, Clark sort of said Clinton should have been censured instead of impeached and raised the larger point of our allies saying this is bad for America and we lost a year that we could have focused on more important stuff-- like the African Embassy Bombings by Al Queda, our failed attempt to bomb his camps, or domestic issues like health care, taxes, social security, you name it.

While Mathews was rehashing 6 year old hits, his panel noted that not only is Clark emerging as Dean's number one opponnet, but that Dean is already trying to do something about it.

Dean-lover Howard Fineman, who knows so much about the West that in 2000 he got Las Vegas confused with Salt Lake City, said that Dean's folks told him their internal New Hampshire polling has Clark already in second place, even better than the ARG poll I talked about yesterday (Clark doesn't pay for polls because enough people are doing them for free).

Why did they give Newsweek columnist Fineman that tidbit? Why to lessen the media bounce that Clark will get when he "comes out of nowhere" to place a strong second and beats out Kerry.

Assuming Dean out organizes Gephardt (especially if there is a snow storm, Dick is in trouble since his folks aren't as diehard as Dean's) in Iowa and Clark gets 2nd in New Hampshire, we have a two man race. After January 27th there could be no Gephardt, no Kerry (and assuming Kerry gets 3rd in IA and NH, possibly no Edwards either). Soon, we have a race with the first tier of Dean and Clark, second tier of Edwards and Lieberman, 3rd of the rest (look for Carol to give it up soon, no money is left and her goal of respectability has been achieved).

I don't see how Edwards can win South Carolina with two 4th place finishes in the first two, nor do I see Lieberman doing well anywhere but Delaware on February 3rd. Again, Clark is already second in every state save Iowa. Once his ads and staff get in there, he could narrow the gap as more "Washington Democrats" drop out and the "stop-Dean" vote coalesces around Clark.

At most, Dean has about 30-40% of the Democratic party. With 9 people running, that's a landslide. But with two people (plus liberal tokens like Sharpton and Kucinich), 30 or 40% doesn't sound all that good.

Notes from the field

I was New Hampshire on Saturday, (Derry, Salem, and Londonderry to be exact) and while the weather wasn't that nice, I was able to get a feel for what is going on over there: Clark is gaining ground everyday.

At the Salem "Transfer Station" which sounds like a bus or train stop but is really the local recycling/trash center, 5 intrepid souls camped outside with small Clark posters. Across the street were 3 sad looking Kerry supporters with a 8x10 "New Hampshire for Kerry" sign. They had the superior position, directly facing those leaving the station, while we had a side that faced the main road at a 45 degree angle. One of the staffers with us volunteers and a friend of mine from the Draft movement days called in for a 8x10 of our own, which didn't come for at least 30 minutes. After getting out "honk and waved" by the locals 5-to-1 the Kerry folks trugged back to their car, and even gave us a honk.

In a city like Derry, the local dump is actually the best place to meet people on a Saturday. It is a fairly rural place for Southern New Hampshire right off the Interstate. It is also an area that Clark needs to win to do well in the state, given that independents and republicans live there mostly and all the college towns are locked up by Dean.

We did phone banking too. People were mostly out (or had used caller ID to not answer our calls) but for every negative call "I am republican," or "Stop calling me," we got a Kerry or Dean supporter who was giving Clark another look, or leaning towards Clark.

Then the head of the Derry office, who is also a friend from the Draft days, gave me the latest poll numbers: on the last day of polling, Clark and Kerry were TIED for second place, not just statistically but at 15 points a piece. Every day of the tracking poll, Kerry had gone down at least a point (the two point difference in the published results are due to averaging the results of several days). Dean too, had melted down to 35%.

A realistic goal, I think, is to narrow the gap with Dean to 15 points and come in second. If you think I am giving a overly optimistic and biased view of the scene on the ground, don't take my word for it. Look at the polls, the fundraising and the turnout at events.

"General Clark has begun to fill some rooms. In Nashua it was standing room only in the city hall. While all the other viable candidates attended a debate forum in Iowa, Clark stayed in New Hampshire. Clark looks like a candidate, now. He looks more comfortable, makes jokes easier, and generally looks much smoother than when he signed up in the Secretary of State's office to run in New Hampshire's primary. When he signed up it was hard to see him becoming very formidable. But the guy has been a quick study, and his operation has begun to look viable.

Don't be surprised if it quickly becomes a Dean/Clark race. " -NHpolitics.com

The standing room only event referred there was a town hall meeting in Portsmouth while I was in Derry. About 200 people were expected, the event was supposed to be in a church basement. More than 800 showed up. Organizers moved the event to the main sanctuary to accommodate the crowd.

The same day, more than 130 people showed up to a town hall in North Hampton. When the fire marshal closed the doors, 30 supporters were lined up outside and two more buses full of people were on the way. Another Clark staffer summed it up to me, "Something good is happening in New Hampshire."

Money y Mano

Some say who cares about how much money people raise, it is about how they stand on the issues. Of course, no one will hear about how they stand on the issues if they don't have money. That's because, unlike you and I, most people don't care about this stuff. Most people won't vote in the primaries, and the half of all elidgible voters who vote in the general election don't decide until the fall. So free coverage and paid coverage are the way to go. NH Union Leader looks at the Race nicely for everyone though.

On the other hand, Clark got free coverage based on doing stuff for his paid coverage, whereas Kerry got coverage for his failing of getting paid coverage. "After relentless fund-raising in his late-entry presidential campaign, retired Army general Wesley K. Clark raised between $10.4 million and $11.1 million in the final quarter of 2003 and will be eligible for up to $6 million in federal matching funds," his staff told the Globe in a fundraising total story with Clark as the headline, not Dean or Kerry.

Right along with what I said yesterday "Senator John F. Kerry, who recently loaned $6.4 million to his campaign, raised only $2.5 million in the fourth quarter." Meanwhile, Clark has raised $20M for the year, and he started in late September. This means he passed Lieberman (the supposed money raiser), Gephardt (Mr. Union $), Edwards (fresh face Clinton Jr), and the jokesters, who all had 12 months to do this. And also keep in mind, Clark spent a month or two screwing up.

Clark has $6M CoH, but he "has already paid for much of his January television advertising in New Hampshire, and his campaign expects to reach the spending caps in New Hampshire. He is also airing ads in South Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona, and North Dakota, and plans to advertise soon in Virginia and Wisconsin." Another $4M is coming in via fundraising next quarter, and another $6+ M in matching funds in January and February. "Aides say they expect Clark will be able to spend $25 million through Feb. 3."

According to the Post's Jim VandeHei, "Clark is the only candidate moving up in New Hampshire, according to public polls and internal surveys by two rival campaigns, though he trails Dean and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). If Clark can overtake Kerry, the retired general could storm into the seven states holding votes on Feb. 3 with significant momentum. With more money than many of his rivals, Clark is planning a sustained media campaign in South Carolina, Tennessee, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona for four weeks until those states vote, a top adviser said. The campaign is also planning to buy television airtime in Wisconsin and Virginia. Dean is the only other candidate advertising on television in so many states."

If you add the $3.7 million plus the $11.1 million, you get pretty close to the $15+ Million Dean raised. Also, there is no CoH statement left on Dean's campaign, who knows how much money they are going to spend on making sure they win Iowa.

All this means while Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards are trying to get something going in Iowa, Clark will free to campaign in New Hampshire (about 2 weeks worth of fun). Granite Staters crave all that attention. My bet: look for Clark to move up to second at around 15-20%. Kerry will slip to 10% and Dean will get 35-40%. (see latest tracking poll numbers of NH here) By February 2nd, Clark might have more CoH for all those states than Dean, and if Dean does win both NH and IA, he will be in some serious trouble.

"What the fund-raising figures show is that there are only two candidates who have the resources to win the nomination, and that is Howard Dean and Wesley Clark" said Clark strategist Chris Lehane [who got fired by Kerry and used to work for Gore in 2000], citing both candidates' fund-raising success and showings in early polls. "The empirical data fit the assertion that this has boiled down to a two-person race." For once, I agree with him. And so does Will Lester of AP. The Daily Kos, a Dean supporter and liberal-bastion blog, also sees it as a two man race. He thinks Clark's "I'm the only electible guy of the two of us" strategy is bad for the party.

"Of course, Clark has had the good fortune of having Dean in the race. The general has slipped in mostly under the radar while everyone else trains their guns on the frontrunner.

Look for that to change as the others, seeing Dean far ahead, look to outlast the rest of the pack (and thus consolidate the hypothetical "anti-Dean" bloc).

Gep is locked into a tight battle against Dean for Iowa, so look for Gep to keep hammering Dean. But Lieberman, Kerry, and (perhaps most of all) Edwards all need to knock Clark down a peg or two. It's too late for them, really, but they'll try anyway. "

In Clark's words: "If you are sick, hire a doctor; if you have legal trouble, hire a lawyer; and if your country is going in the wrong direction, you need a leader."

The influential Times collumnist Paul Krugman also sees it as a Dean-Clark race, but decides to tack on a comparison between Lieberman's Dean-bashing to the right to Nader's Gore-bashing to the left.

In Clark's words: "If you are sick, hire a doctor; if you have legal trouble, hire a lawyer; and if your country is going in the wrong direction, you need a leader."

In the New Year, look for more "Dean's actually not that liberal" stories that might hurt him in the short term but might help him against potential Rove attacks, assuming he wins the nomination. The LA Times finds Environmentalists in Vermont that hate Dean.

Happy New Year everyone. My New Year's resolution: get fit and get into law school and get Wes Clark in the White House. What's yours?

Don't cry for me, Ames Iowa!

The Boston Globe did some more of its famous piling on to US Senator John Kerry, estwhile Democratic Presidential Frontrunner. Today's article brings Kerry's rollercoaster year to an end. He started out on top, and is ending with a whimper.

According to sources, he is struggling to get $2 to $3 million this quarter, which means he might very well get beat by Lieberman, and even maybe Kucinich, who has $1.5+ with a goal of $1.7 million.

'I'm dying out there,' a Kerry fund-raiser told the Globe "a veteran Democratic moneyman who spoke on the condition of anonymity." 'There was so much excitement about John Kerry early on, and now there's none.' ... "Top fund-raisers said they began this last quarter, on Oct. 1, with a $4 million goal, but said it was incrementally reduced over the last three months." that was a pretty weak goal.

Wasn't Clark's $12 million? Wasn't Dean's $15 million? Sounds like it is a two man race, and when it gets that way, Dean is in trouble, according to my friend Stirling Newberry at BOP.

"It is a delicate dance - if Dean knocks out other contenders, then there is only one place for the "anybody but Dean" vote to flow: Clark. And Dean does not do well in a two man race with Clark. Where as, with several smaller candidates drawing a few percentage points off here and there, and burning money to hold on to support - even the Kucinichites are making passionate pleas to their base to hold on to their man and not defect to Dean or another candidate - it allows Dean to be the first among equals, and "win" with only 40% of the vote."

"While Dean is the front runner, he has not made the sale yet. This means anti-Dean support will form around one person, and that person will, sooner or later, be Clark. Dean hopes it is later - then Clark becomes another speed bump. Clark hopes that it is sooner - after Iowa preferably."

People have also talked about these 527s, the new soft-money havens that Clintonities are stashing away with a goal of $100 million for that black out period of spring to summer for the Democratic nominee. The question is, will they hold off their money if its Dean, or will they use it to attack him if it is still close? "Does Dean really want the party's message in this crucial period shaped by the very faction of the party with which he's picked a fight?" asks Mickey Kaus.

Rumors from pundits abound that Clinton's pick is Clark and his people are hence going to bat for Clark, and that there is a civil war going on in the party between Gore and Clinton. Surely Dean and Clark are more than proxy fighters. Methinks things are looking up for the "old machine" after all.

4th Quarter Thoughts

Well, the money for the fourth quarter is pouring in for Presidential Candidates and it just confirms what we already know:

1. Dean is leading
   
2. Kerry is toast
   
3. Gephardt's back virtue of his position in Iowa
   
4. Clark is becoming the no. 2 behind Dean
   
5. Lieberman and Edwards are like those NFL teams that needed help to make a wildcard spot
   
6. Kucinich is being kept afloat by liberal Democrats worried about the Nader factor

Dean, according to the rumors they have been spreading, has $14 million with another $400,000 coming in tonight at their Gore/Dean house party/phone-a-thon. In a statement to supporters yesterday, Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi offered a new plea for more funds, saying: "Wes Clark and other candidates are waiting for us in South Carolina and Arizona and the five other states that come on February 3d. All their money together is aimed at stopping our campaign, even as we need to focus on Washington state and Michigan and the other races beyond -- and George Bush himself in the general election." All of this is of course true, assuming they make it that far.

Meanwhile, Clark has $10-12 million and will get $3.7 Million in matching funds coming in January, the most of any candidate, and much more in February for this 4th Q. Sounds like he has about 3/4th of Dean's CoH (cash on hand, AKA money left over after spending) even though he didn't start until September 17th.

Geppy has close to $6.3 million this quarter, which is amazing considering he looked like flotsam earlier in the year. Slow and Steady just might win this race. Their burn rate has slowed significantly.

Kerry has borrowed $6 million from his Beacon Hill mansion and has said nothing about how much he has raised. Sounds like Kerry is coming up very short. When asked how much, his campaign said this about Howard Dean "We're going to make him spend it all"

Kerry is going to do a two-stage Alamo, hoping for a strong 2nd or 3rd in Iowa and then a miracle in NH. But after he flops, he will be out by the end of January, having spent all his money and credibility up.

So who does he endorse? He has famously bad instincts politically (see War Resolution votes), almost as bad as Lieberman (see Department of Homeland Security, 2002 elections). If Gephardt wins Iowa, maybe he will be tempted to prop up Gep, not realizing that now is Clark's turn to take a hammer at Dean. Personally I would be surprised but not shocked if he got behind Dean, which could sink Dean right there ;) poor Kerry.

Lieberman had an uptick in fundraising since Gore's announcement but it is mostly sympathy cash. I would be surprised if he got better than 4th in NH. Edwards, haven't heard from his folks in a while and my feeling is, no news is bad news. The jig is up.

Kucinich is closing in on 1.7 million for this Quarter. Not much, but a lot more than the other jokesters. Hey he might even beat out Kerry, Edwards, or Lieberman in cash raised this Quarter, and boy wouldn't that spell their doom?!

As for the rest, they had to borrow a quarter to call some one who cares.

news happens even when we don't want it to

Plus, News flash: Dean wants it both ways and is arrogant

During the holiday season, families want to be left alone and manage to tear their eyes away from TV (except for sports like NFL football) but meanwhile, the world keeps chugging along.

For example, there is a huge disaster in Iran that has got about 30 seconds worth of attention on local and national news. 25,000 people are dead! Single digits die in California's mud slides or similar earthquakes and we have reporters standing by. OK well it is closer to home, Iran isn't very western-friendly to say the least and so on, but still! It also goes to show that California building codes are the only thing keeping massive amounts of people from dying there. Now they just need to stop more building from happening. Then there wouldn't be so many bad forest fires and successive mudslides. That state is just one big natural disaster.

In other news, Libya is opening itself up for real WMD's inspections and is trying to get back into the oil business it seem. Finally its dictator wised up and decided he was tired of being super-poor and on the verge of being bombed into the stone age.

On a CNN/Faux News level, BSE or Mad Cow disease hit the US. People are freaking out and it could spell a disaster for the beef industry and the economy, but I think the dent will only be temporary.

People got stuck in the airport over Christmas because of semi-vague terror threats, which were delayed thanks to the French leaking the information before the flight. Now we want armed guards on flights going into the US. Yay, guns for everyone.

Dean to supporters: it's me or nobody

In political news, Dean is calling for double standards and sending left wing code messages again. The ex-Vermont Governor wants DNC Chairman Terry McAulifee to make the other presidential candidates stop attacking him, because they might end up working. Of course when Dean was making much worse attacks on his rivals, he was fine with Terry staying out of it.

"Hey look, somebody's going to have to win here," he said, referring to himself. "If Ron Brown were the chairman, this wouldn't be happening." Meaning, if the Clinton's hadn't gotten their man in there, things would be better. Even worse he also implied that many of his supporters,wouldn't support another Democrat if he loses.

"I don't know where they're going to go, but they're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician," he said. [Ed: What about Clark?]

Sunday he claimed that his support was "not transferable anymore" and that endorsements, including his own, "don't guarantee anything." Which must be why he and Gore said after his endorsement that it means so much and that people should just throw in the towel and get behind the good Doctor.

I am glad that Dean has gotten new people involved in politics and campaigns but I think it is highly presumptuous to say they will take their ball and go home like little spoiled children if he loses. Sounds like the 'Dean will be a third-party candidate' old post (see below) might be valid after all. Sounds like the first signal to his supporters to join him on a Nadereque campaign of arrogance to win the presidency from the left in a three-way race.

The three-way Dean (no not a porno industry title)

Slate's Mickey Kaus makes a good point today, would Dean really quit if he lost in the Democratic primary? Not if he is smart, says Kaus.

Picture this, Dean loses to a Gephardt type (after narrowly losing IA of course) establishment, pro-war Democrat. Dean could re-migrate to the left and take his own machine which is completely independent of the Democratic Party "his own lists, his own money, his own organization" and stake out the presidency on the war issue alone. That could be enough for 35-40% of the population to vote his way, assuming Geppy moves to the Center and Bush to the hard right. TNR even thinks that "Heck, Dean might even be the favorite in this scenario ..."

While I am done having nightmares, DLC types would love to let Dean have the party, if they could get enough folks to jump ship into a McCain Bullmoose party. The centrists think that more people believe their stuff, reggardless of party, so why not prove it? If we had a Green/Gore/Dean party and a Clinton-McCain party and a Bush-Lott party, guess who would win? I am afraid it would be the far out right wing, there are more of those wackos than the tree hugger wackos (just ask Ralph Nader).

Although folks say, well Dean has already said he would support the nominee, would it really be smart for him in the long run or short run? And when was the last time he kept his word? Or when was the last time he conceded? The man is pretty arrogant, and I can see why. He has already beat 4 sitting senators and one ex-senator, a congressman and might beat out another congressman and a 4 star general, not to mention some civil rights guy. Why wouldn't you think you could beat a sitting president after coming out of nowhere to do so well, even if all those loser senators ganged up on you and let their friend punch you in the stomach for the nomination.

This seems like some think my "BOP" friends would like this idea:"You can put up a Web site and fill out some Meetup.com forms, and you can have a party-like political organization in all 50 states in a few weeks. Who needs Terry McAuliffe?" I we can hope for then as Democrats is either pacifying Dean in some way or that he wins and then loses badly enough that the party wakes up after the ruins of 2004 and nominates someone good in 2008, if the planet will still be here.

And now for some analysis

In short, dispite the questionable methods of this polling firm, I think it shows that it is increasingly become a two-man race between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. And really, if I had told anyone that this time last year, they would have said "Who?" and then laughed in my face after I explained who they were.

Remember how everyone wanted some McCain magic in the primary, they wanted to compare themselves to and snuggle up with ol' Johnny? Well this quote tells you who it won't be: Dean. "I would feel some sense of confidence about picking up every one of them if Governor Dean heads the ticket." -- John McCain, on the open Southern SEN seats, "Hardball," 12/16.

McCain has a pretty good sense of what it takes to win in the south, after all Bush creamed him there.

The ideal senerio for Clark is a narrow Dean win in IA, knocking out Gephardt but leaving folks dissipointed about Dean, and then a sneak attack at second in NH, at around 15-20+% Clark will have gone from 3% in the summer to 20% by January. Pretty amazing, "pretty Comeback Kid" like. Then on to 2/3 states. If he can win most of them-- OK SC are musts-- and finish a strong second in the others...it is a Clark vs. Dean show down for the next rounds up to super Tuesday. Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt (and Lieberman) folks will break toward Clark mostly, since the only reason most of them supported their guy was A winnability and B anti-Deanism, especially Kerry and Gephardt folks since they will be mad at Dean for beating their guy.

Groundhog Tuesday Numbers from questioned polling firm:

Arizona:

Dean 31
Clark 29
"Other" 11
Lieberman 10
Gephardt 9
Kerry 7
Undecided 3

Oklahoma:

Clark 34
Dean 21
Lieberman 11
"Other" 11
(all others single digits)

South Carolina:

Dean 21
Clark 20
Edwards 15
Sharpton 15
Gephardt 10
Undecided 7
(all others bottom feeders)

Was Saddam rescued by the US Army?

The Israeli-based military/intelligence site DEBKAfile seems to thinks so.

"A number of questions are raised by the incredibly bedraggled, tired and crushed condition of this once savage, dapper and pampered ruler who was discovered in a hole in the ground on Saturday, December 13:

1. The length and state of his hair indicated he had not seen a barber or even had a shampoo for several weeks.

2. The wild state of his beard indicated he had not shaved for the same period

3. The hole dug in the floor of a cellar in a farm compound near Tikrit was primitive indeed: 6ft across and 8ft across with minimal sanitary arrangements - a far cry from his opulent palaces.

4. Saddam looked beaten and hungry.

5. Detained trying to escape were two unidentified men. Left with him were two AK-47 assault guns and a pistol, none of which were used.

6. The hole had only one opening. It was not only camouflaged with mud and bricks; it was blocked. He could not have climbed out without someone on the outside removing the covering.

7. And most important, $750,000 in 100-dollar notes were found with him (a pittance for his captors who expected a $25m reward), but no communications equipment of any kind, whether cell phone or even a carrier pigeon for contacting the outside world.

According to DEBKAfile analysts, these seven anomalies point to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner. "

The article goes on to claim that PUK leader (leading party of the Kurds in Northern Iraq) Jalal Talabani (not related to the Taliban in Afghanistan, but his family tribal name) was negotiating to get the $25 bounty on Hussein's head.

In other bits of bad news, DEBKAfile claims "the notorious Lebanese terrorist and hostage-taker Imad Mughniyeh, who figures on the most wanted list of 22 men published by the FBI after 9/11, had arrived in southern Iraq and was organizing a new anti-US terror campaign to be launched in March-April 2004, marking the first year of the American invasion. "

During the War in Iraq, DEBKAfile had some of the best intelligence on what was actually happening on the ground, although it is definitely an unfiltered intell-dump. Way back in the spring, they had sources that claimed that Saddam was in Minsk.

Where are the WMD? DEBKAfile says Dr. David Kay knows: "The search has narrowed down to a section of the Syrian Desert known as Dayr Az-Zawr in Syria?s 600 sq. mile Al Jazirah province, which is wedged between the Turkish and Iraqi borders. The missing weapons systems are thought to be buried somewhere under these desert sands. "

All of this points a disturbing picture, one that makes US Rep. Jim McDermott (Dean supporter from WA) seem correct "I'm sure they could have found him a long time ago if they wanted to." He added: "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing" Remember this is the same guy that went to Iraq just before the war and critiqued Bush there-- and a favorite whipping boy of the Right Wing.

Could we find the WMD's, Osama Bin Laden all in time for November 2004? Maybe, but if it happens in September or October, Mr. McDermott will prove to be a wise sage after all.

Clark/Dean 2, DLC and Lieberman/Gephardt 0

When it comes to questions of war and milarty, who do you trust, a retired 4 star general and a governor of a tiny rural state, or a bunch of military experts who never served in a war and never worked for the Clinton Administration (even though the other half of the office did)?

On the war resolution and the $87 billion approperation, Clark and Dean took the same position, despite contrary belief. Clark and Dean support the Biden-Lugar version of the resolution, that would have had Bush come back to the Congress if the UN/NATO didn't work out. Instead, Gephardt and Lieberman short curcuited the process and the resolution was much more of a blank check for Bush.

Having learned their lession, Edwards and Kerry didn't vote for another blank check, this time a $87 billion one. Clark and Dean had said no to both blank checks, and Lieberman Gephardt and the DLC said yes to both. The DLC went so far as to call those who didn't support the money irresponsible and lacking leadership. Now look what happened.

"Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz last week directed a newly formed inspector general's office in Iraq not to request sensitive information about Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) activities related to intelligence or operational plans." The CPA was supposed to insure that there was no price gouging or anything fishy going on with the money. And the activities that the CPA was restrained from looking into are "initiating, carrying out, or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing a subpoena, which requires access to sensitive operation plans, intelligence matters, counterintelligence matters, ongoing criminal investigations by other administration units of the [Defense Department] related to national security, or other matters the disclosure of which would constitute a serious threat to national security."

In short, Wolfowitz, who just said "No contracts for you, Old Europe," is saying you can be an inspector general as long as you don't do any inspecting.

Those who aspire to lead the country should show some backbone to the man that has walked all over Congress like the legislative branch doesn't matter, who has disrespected allies of over 50 years (and destroyed most of those relationships), hides information and lies to the general public and the press. Bush has no respect for anything except money and power, and not even the money or power of the US Congress, so why should members of the US Congress trust him? Why should a center-left think tank trust him? Bush has proven is untrustworthiness over and over, from basically January 20, 2001 onwards. Get a clue guys.

This is why outsiders and executors (governors generals etc) win the nominations for president and become president, not Senators and Representatives.

Dean says he can beat Bush, but what do the polls say?

NEW HAMPSHIRE (4 EVs): Bush Leads Generic Dem By 17; Leads Dean By 27
An American Research Group poll; conducted 12/7-10; surveyed 600 adults; margin of error +/- 4%. Subsample: 450 regis. voters; margin of error +/- 4.6% (release, 12/11).

WH '04 General Election Matchups (asked of RVs only)
All GOP Dem Ind 9/03 All GOP Dem Ind
Bush 51% 88% 5% 47% 50% Bush 57% 94% 14% 63%
Dem 34 6 76 32 36 Dean 30 - 67 11
Undec. 15 6 19 21 14 Undec. 13 6 19 26

Bush Job As President Bush Job Handling The Economy
All GOP Dem Ind 9/03 All GOP Dem Ind 9/03
Approve 58% 94% 5% 58% 51% Approve 54% 88% 5% 53% 44%
Disapprove 34 6 81 26 43 Disapprove 40 6 81 42 48


Bottom line: even in a state where he is well known, well liked and killing his opponnets in the primary, Dean is badly losing to Bush in a must win state. Remember, if Dean holds every state Gore did in 2000, he is still 11 electoral votes short. If Dean is losing a state by 27 points when Gore lost it by a few thousand votes, what does that say for the other swing states, including the ones Gore barely won, like PA?

Not good news for the "Howard is electable" meme or the "GOPers are truely afraid of Dean" meme.

so much for loyality

Gore thought that his brazen political move to endorse Dean would force people like Lieberman to drop out sooner. So much for that, according to the New Haven Register, Lieberman's campaign "received twice as many online contributions as any other day in the current quarter," and the rate of online donations "is 10 times above average." Translation: you helped him, you didn't hurt him.

All the pundits are saying now there is a Gore/Dean/Moveon.org wing of the party and a Clinton/Clark/Lieberman wing of the party, with Gephardt/Daschle/Kerry/Edwards wing being the loser congressional Democrats that have never done nothing. The proxy fight between Clinton and Gore is on, with Dean and Clark as the main protagonists. We shall see who pervails. It used to be that Clinton could always be counted on having the upper hand in fundraising, but with Dean's "$100 revolution" that may not be the case any more. Who would you rather have 10 $2,000 donors or 2000 $100 donors? Pretty simple answer when you think about it, beyond the pure math, becuase you could always talk the $100 people to give more later, where as the $2,000 folks simply can't by law.

The White House thinks the Dems have their nominee already, according to the Times: "President Bush's political advisers are now all but certain that Howard Dean will be the Democratic presidential nominee and they are planning a campaign that takes account of what they see as Dr. Dean's strengths and weaknesses, Republicans with ties to the White House said."
....

"Throughout the year, many Republicans have been longing for a Bush-Dean matchup, saying Dr. Dean's opposition to the war with Iraq, his call for rolling back Mr. Bush's tax cuts and his support for civil unions between gay people would open the door to a Republican landslide in November.

Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser and political strategist, was reported by The Washington Post this summer to have exhorted the crowd at his neighborhood Fourth of July parade to cheer for marchers wearing Dean T-shirts and carrying Dean signs. People close to Mr. Bush, who prides himself on his personal and political discipline, describe Dr. Dean as a sloppy candidate who gets himself in trouble too often by shooting from the hip and who is slow to clean up messes."

I know Dean is going bring in new voters into the process, according to his campaign. But I will not hold my breath. Most of these folks are the 18-24 crowd who, although they really might hate Bush, might flake out and not show up when it matters in January or, for that matter, November. Lets just wait for people to actually vote, shall we?

Hypocrisy 101

Will Saletan of Slate made an excellent point about Gore's speech when he endorsed Dean: the same man who in December 2000 said we should wait until every vote is counted in December 2003 says he doesn't want to wait for a single vote to be counted.

Elections should be determined, Gore said, "by the votes cast by the people, not by politicians." Gee, I wonder which one of those he is.

By telling everyone to get out of Howard's way and shut up, Al and Howard just made us all louder. I think it will be harder for some folks to raise money and get support and ultimately win and thus the process will be accelerated to be Dean and someone else, but what right does Gore have to tell us Democrats what to do? Unlike Republicans, we don't take marching orders well.

as Saletan said "Who decided Dean was the strongest candidate? Not the voters: They haven't voted. Not the polls, either: They've shown Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark scoring better than Dean in hypothetical match-ups with President Bush." In fact, even in national polls Dean by be leading but not by much, most of the time it is within the margin of error. Sure, he has a commanding lead in NH and is up in IA too, but how much of the party (or the country) really is behind or even knows who this guy is? Not much, that's because we haven't voted yet. And I for one am not voting for Howard Dean.

Did anyone notice where the announcement was held? In Cedar Rapids IA and Harlem NYC, a few feet away from President Clinton's office and a few more from Senator Clinton's New York district offices. But back to the point, no one doubts Dean is #1.

So who is that number 2 going to be, now that Dean is solidly number 1? I say Clark, and I am not the only one.

"Who's really still in this race?, Josh Marshall asks, "....Gephardt and Kerry can be effectively knocked out of the race by losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively -- eventualities which now seem quite likely....Lieberman isn't closely tied to success in either of those states. But his campaign has just never taken off... Lieberman is the only major candidate in the race for whom there is a significant core of Democratic primary voters who find him an unacceptable nominee. ...

In any case, that leaves Clark.

Add to this two other factors.

1. Clark is raising money at a better clip than any of the other candidates beside Dean.

2. Clark has a clearer raison d'etre for his campaign than that of any of the other candidates, save Dean: namely, his national security credentials as a retired general...Many presidents have been governors with no prior foreign policy experience. So Dean's in good company. But it's a clear distinction between Dean and Clark in what is sure to be a general election fought heavily on national security issues."

Finally, I would like to quote from David Letterman: "Al Gore has endorsed Howard Dean for president. That's pretty fitting, the guy that didn't beat Bush endorsing the guy who won't beat Bush" ("Late Show").

Al Gore sold out

Gore 10.0 is out, and he decided to endorse Howard Dean. Everyone is talking about it. But why don't we stop and think about what Gore has to gain by this, because we know what Dean gains from this.

Al, after losing the election in 2000, has tried to stay relevant and a leader in his party. Even though he wisely chose not to run against Bush again, he managed to do that by hooking up with MoveOn.org and moving to the left. He wailed against the war in Iraq and called for then Majority Leader Sen. Trent Lott to step down first. His VP pick has sucked all year and made him look like a bigger fool that when Lieberman lost the VP debate to Cheney. In 2002, Al decided to abandon the DLC, a group which he helped found and was a chairman of. Al supported some folks for higher office in 2002, and the results were down right sad, I can't think of one that won that wasn't in a safe seat and even his picks in the primary didn't work out too well. 2003 wasn't much better, about even in terms of endorse and win Mayor Street (good) and Governor Davis (bad). Why should Gore, the ultimate insider, go for the outsider?

I'll tell you why. Al, like Hillary, decided that 2004 was unwinnable, and Bush was not someone they could beat. Those two will be fighting in 2008 for the nomination, and they know this because if Dean wins, we all lose. Why back a general election disaster? Because you want to shore up your liberal base and pant the seed for a comeback against Governor Jeb Bush or Senator Bill Frist. Running against Cheney would be too much fun.

Shame on you Al Gore. Have some faith in Democrats to pick a winner. Have some sense of country to pick a candidate who can turn this country around. Don't be Nader 2004, and hand the country over to Bu$h Co. We can't wait 4 more years for you and Hillary to rescue us off your white horse. If you think things are bad now, they will only get worse with more power and no accountability for GW Bush. We need leadership, not opportunists.


Who knows? Maybe winning the Gore primary will be like winning the Shrum primary, something you don't want to meet.

Goodbye, Senator

What I failed to mention in my post yesterday, was some think that Mickey Kaus pointed out in such harsh, but true prose:

"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. [well within the margin of error; see yesterday's post] And Kerry's fading while Clark is rising. ... When the lines cross, several things will happen: 1) The main surviving rationale of Kerry's campaign--"I'm the electable alternative to Dean"--evaporates. It turns out there's a more electable alternative. Kerry's vote asymptotically approaches zero. 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 McGovern 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. If Clark's ready with an appealing message when the spotlight turns to him, he could give Dean a scare and at least come close enough to winning to get a boost for the post-N.H. primaries. ... "

Earlier, Kaus tries to think up good withdrawal speeches for John Kerry. I feel sorry for Kerry, about the same why I feel sorry for Al Gore...What a nice smart man, who is a horrible candidate with lots of woulda coulda shouda. True, Kerry is dead because of Dean's rise, but Dean rose because he was pointing out Kerry's flaws, the ones that make him unelectable even in Massachusetts in the primary (Dean leads him in two polls).

In truth, Kerry's campaign collapsed in October 2002, when he voted for the war because he thought that would be politically expedient. He was trying to make up for a bad vote on the 1991 war in Iraq, but instead, he voted the wrong way both times. The Gulf War was justified (Iraq had violated the sovereignty of, happily for us an oil-rich country, but a country nonetheless, which violates the most basic part of the UN charter) whereas "Operation Bush/Cheney 2004" was not. Even Al Gore figured that out, having voted for the Gulf War and opposed the current one.

Headline in 54 days: Dean wins NH

If you had hopes that Kerry could stage a come back in NH, or that anyone might give Dean a scare up there, you better give up now. Not one but two polls show Dean destroying everyone and Kerry flopping further and Clark ticking up to be close to 2nd place, thanks to a $221k ad buy.

A Zogby Int'l poll, conducted 12/1-3, surveyed 503 likely Dem primary voters (302 Dems; 201 indies); margin of error +/- 4.5% (release, 12/4).

Dem Primary Matchup Now 10/03 9/03 Dem Ind Fav/Unfav
Howard Dean 42% 40% 30% 44% 39% 78%/12%
John Kerry 12 17 20 15 9 64 /28
Wesley Clark 9 6 n/a 9 9 50 /23
Joe Lieberman 7 3 5 6 9 55 /35
John Edwards 4 6 2 4 4 52 /16
Dick Gephardt 3 4 6 2 4 52 /31
Dennis Kucinich 2 0 1 2 1 21 /25
Al Sharpton 0 1 1 0 0 12 /58
Carol Moseley Braun 0 0 0 0 0 25 /27
Not Sure 19 19 22 18 22

An American Research Group poll, conducted 11/30-12/3, surveyed 600 likely Dem primary voters (430 Dems; 170 indies); margin of error +/- 4% (release, 12/4).

Dem Primary Matchup
Now 11/20 11/5 Fav/Unfav
Dean 45% 38% 38% 69 / 7
Kerry 13 17 24 57 /18
Clark 11 7 4 43 /12
Gephardt 5 4 3 51 /22
Lieberman 5 5 4 43 /38
Edwards 3 4 4 42 /18
Kucinich 2 3 1 23 /17
Braun 0 1 1 21 /15
Sharpton 1 0 0 15 /46
Undec. 15 21 21

OK in the 40s with 9 people in the race? Its over baby. Even if Kerry can get 2nd in IA (see yesterday's post), which isn't going to happen, he still has no chance in NH. And I don't know how Kerry can think that he can get enough money or support if he can't win the state that has seen his TV ads for over 20 years. And if he is losing his own state to Dean. Quit while you are behind Senator. Its beginning to look like a Greek Tragedy for Sen. JFK. Now I see it as a race between Gephardt Edwards and Clark on second fiddle to Dean. Who will it be?

Gephardt, even if he wins IA, won't have any $ left. Will the cash come when he wins? Maybe, but will it be enough to keep him afloat? I doubt it.

Edwards has as many ifs as Clark: both have to place so high in IA (or in Clark's case NH) to have a shot at SC. or do they? Could they all just leave NH and IA for Dean and make sure they beat him on Super Tuesday Jr. ? The problem with that idea is Dean has sooo much money, he can do both (win IA and NH and put up ads in 2/3 states). I wish it weren't true but unless they clobber Dean in 2/3 and or Gephardt wins IA, don't see how Dems are going to stop the train wreck that is Dean from being the nominee. Gulp

Iowa end game

Al of a sudden, the Hawkeye State became important for 2 other candidates, or at least they suddenly realized it.

1. Kerry figured out he has to do well in IA to have a prayer in NH, and since he wasn't getting much traction in the "Live Free or Die" State (great motto by the way), and was closer to Dean in IA than NH he might as well try for 2nd/"1st" since his campaign spin is still that he will win IA and NH and the nomination (riiight).
   
   
2. Edwards figured out that if he had a strong 3rd and knocked out Kerry, he could get a strong 3rd or 2nd in NH and all of a sudden be in shape to win the whole thing. Look where his ad budget and visits are going. Not a bad idea, since Kerry was sinking faster than Michael Jackson record sales.

Ok reality check time: the most recent Zogby Poll Sez: Dean 26, Gephardt 22, a difference within the margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. (The poll of 501 voters who say they are likely to participate in the caucuses was taken Monday and Tuesday. )

In the latest poll, almost three in 10 voters, 28 percent, were undecided -- close to the level of undecided voters in October. And the rest? Single, laughable digits:

Kerry 9 ; Edwards 5; Clark 4. Kucinich and Lieberman 1 percent. Moseley Braun and Sharpton were at 1 percent or less.

So what's going to happen? Either a Dean blowout or a narrow Gephardt win. This is because each caucus group gets to convince the undecides to join with them, and Dean has a huge org network to babysit for caucus goers, drive them to and from and lots of supporters in every single one of IA's 99 counties. Gephardt has risidual support from his '88 days and his career as a labor man in the House...

As for third place? Clark could sneak up on Kerry or Edwards with volunteers, you never know. the fact that he is even within striking distance of those two (w/ the MOE) is a sad statement to those two who have blown, I mean spent 100s of thousands on TV and so on there. Clark spent like $50 in comparison.

No rest for the week

Appologies for the lack of posting over the Holiday. I needed to relax and read some books, watch some movies and only take one practice LSAT. I have at least 2 this week and then the big kakuna on Saturday morning. But after that, I am free man...sort of.

In the meanwhile, Dean is getting hit hardest on where he is weakest, hipocracy and national security. The whole Aspen-skiing-with-a-bad-back-draft-dodging makes Clinton look good. Now I wonder, do people really care about that. After all, most men that age either tried to get out of it or lucked out when their number wasn't called. Maybe those who had to go because they were poor, etc will resent him, but clearly those people aren't giving money to Democrats now and are most likely not voting in IA or NH in January. Will Kerry or Clark be able to use it to their advantage with Vets? Maybe in SC or AZ, but those are later and Kerry will be gone by then if he doesn't win NH...so these are only helpful to Clark other than making Dean look bad.

In a unsurprising move, Lieberman is attacking a fellow candidate, Dean, this time on his poor record of hiding his records. In a Bush-like move, Dean has sealed records on his 10 years as governor, keeping Gephardt's, Kerry's and maybe Bush's oppo researchers at bay. Look for a possible court order if it gets really ugly. My quib is this, if you go around bragging about what you did as governor, why on Earth would you want to hide the records? Its like the Senators/Congressmen sealing their voting records or Clark his military records or Sharpton sealing his court/criminal records. Its just pretty indefensable, but lets watch him try.

"I'll unseal mine if he will unseal all of his," said Dr. Dean, about Bush's Texas records. Gee, this is another one of those things in common with Bush you don't want to have or want to compare yourself with, like his national security/foriegn policy experience. Dumb all around.

According to the Times, Judicial Watch plans to file a lawsuit, perhaps as soon as this week, to gain access to the records, which were sealed under the executive privilege exemption to the Vermont Public Records Act and include reams of correspondence with the state staff.

"He has been acting like he has something to hide," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, who went after Clinton in 90s and has gone after Cheney's energy commission.

Dean had wanted a 24-year seal, because "we didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor." Could 'future endeavor' be code for 'Presidential Run'? Gee, that's a tough one.

What the Zell is wrong with you, Miller?

Thank you Ed Kilgore. He finally answered the riddle to me on why Zell decided to out Republican the GOP: he hates Washington. This ol' boy from Georgia feels like he is being talked down to all the time, and doesn't like is more liberal party-mates from the likes of San Francisco.

Kilgore, then-Gov. Miller's federal-state relations director from 1992 to 1994, certainly knows the man of which he speaks when he reviews his book in this month's Blueprint, a rag that let me get a byline or two.

"Sadly, Miller's perverse and premature endorsement of Bush, and his adoption by the right-wing media machine, will all but guarantee that few if any Democrats will pay attention to the nuggets of sound advice he offers his party. Most of the book simply warns Democrats that they cannot remain competitive in the South if they abandon traditional party commitments to mainstream cultural views and to the economic aspirations of the middle class. He repeatedly praises the Democratic Leadership Council for offering the right advice to Democrats, even as he endorses Bush administration positions on economic, fiscal, and foreign policies that the DLC consistently opposes. At a time when centrist Democrats are fighting insidious claims that its positions are no more than Bush Lite, Miller offers Bush Heavy as an alternative."

The real question this book doesn't answer then is, why did Zell become a Senator if every time he went to DC, as Ed claims, he got all tense and defensive? His sense of duty to the party? And since not all democrats are not New Democrats, Zell thought: 'to hell will ya'll' and let the right-wing pander start.

"In the first chapter of A National Party No More, Miller compares himself to Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith, and sadly says: 'What I discovered in Washington was truth, and truth did not set me free. It simply made me mad.'

That's vintage Zell, but he's got it backward: He came to Washington and got mad, and his anger has bent him against the real truth, and driven him into the arms of people with little but contempt for his old-fashioned Democratic values. "

Right-Wing Hippocrite of the Week

Louisville anti-porn activist John Riddle was arrested for soliciting a prostitute. He had "a bottle of Viagra in his possession," according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

and Picture of the day It wasn't this year, but in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I give you this; enjoy

Kerry's bleeding more than Ketchup

MASSACHUSETTS (3/2 primary): Two New Polls Show Dean Leading Kerry

A Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll; conducted 11/19-22 by KRC Communications Research; surveyed 400 likely Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.9% (Boston Globe, 11/23).

WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
Dean 27%
Kerry 24
Clark 6

Which Do You Agree With?
Kerry's campaign is moving forward, even though he has faced
recent rough spots 46%
Kerry's candidacy is floundering and he should drop out 25

And This One Has Dean Up Nine
A Boston Herald poll; conducted 11/19-21 by RKM Research and Communications; surveyed 424 "probable" Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.8% (Boston Herald, 11/24).

WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
Dean 33%
Kerry 24
Clark 7
Lieberman 4
Gephardt 3

All of a sudden, Lieberman's tiny lead over Dean in CT doesn't look so bad. I don't care what you say to try and spin this, you are weak, you are in bad shape, you are toast if you are losing your own state in the primary. How can you expect to beat George W. Bush, if you can't even win Massachusetts, Senator? It is like McCain topping Bush in Texas in 2000. Or Bradley beating Gore in Tennessee.

Go back to your mansion on Beacon Hill and listen to the Democratic nominatee's speech from there, because that is as close as your are going to get. Add Kerry going to play dress up ala Bush.