surprised, shocked....not

In a stunning move that everyone and their mom, including me, predicted, John Kerry is opening up the Ketchup Bottle and refusing to abide by any spending limits in any states....like oh say New Hampshire were he is down 15 points.

also, ultra-unshocking, Lieberman attacked a fellow candidate, trying to be Zell Miller-lite, by saying "Limiting the amount of money in campaigns is an important principle that I have spent years fighting for. It's unfortunate that John Kerry has joined Howard Dean in abandoning that important principle"

On the wierd side, Clark is having trouble rescheduling a fundraiser during an important NH TV debate, and has yet to say he will attend the debate (he is the only one, unfortunately who won't be attending so far--- please kick people off) ... all this while AP's Thiemer reports Wesley Clark announced 11/13 he will "give his campaign a cash infusion by accepting public financing for the primaries." Clark will "be limited" to spend $45M in the primary and will "face state-by-state spending caps." He will be eligible for $19M in govt funding. Clark spokeperson Kym Spell: "We're raising money at a significant clip, which was why we waited so long to make the decision." She also said Clark "ultimately decided" to use public finanacing "out of repect for the system." If Clark gets the Dem nod, "there is a risk he will be near the spending limit" while Pres. Bush has "millions left to spend next spring and summer, before the general election season starts" (11/14). The goal? $10M by New Year's. I think you can do it without missing a debate in NH in December General.

Yo, yo, what's the scenario

Time to theorize:

1. Dean wins IA, NH: OUT Kerry and Gephardt IN Edwards or Clark WHO CARES Lieberman and the jokesters. SC determines who is going to be No. 2 to Dean and try to run the table with him in the south and Midwest, look for Clinton associated money to come pouring into the winner and Dean to be attacked.


2. Gephardt wins IA, Dean wins NH: OUT Kerry IN E or C WHO CARES L, M-B, S, and K. Same as above in terms of SC but now Gephardt can try to stop him with an econ message in SC and many other states, possibly dragging down Dean lower in southern states. No. 2? G E or C


3. Gephardt wins IA, with Edwards in 3rd, Dean wins NH with Edwards in strong 2nd: OUT Kerry in IA IN maybe C maybe, G WHO CARES (see above). Now, Edwards is in the driver's seat and is the clear No. 2, if not No. 1 in terms of raw delegates going into super Tuesday. Watch Clintonestas to coalesce behind Edwards and leave Clark for dead. A united push to destroy Dean.


4. Gephardt wins IA, with Kerry in strong 3rd. Kerry slugs out Dean in NH Clark/Edwards in third. OUT Dean ! IN Kerry Edwards Clark....Even in this dream scenario for J. Forbes K., I don't know how he would win any 2/3 states, he will be all spent after killing Dean. Maybe some one give him a VP slot as a thank-you gift for killing Dean's candidacy. Or maybe it energizes him to do well in some other states, but never SC.

These are the probable scenarios, in my book. If you, dear Readers, can explain how anything else can happen (like Dean winning SC or Kerry winning more than NH if he is very lucky) in real plausible terms, I would be happy to add them to the list. Notice I am not explaining Clark's winning strategy is the most likely but possible, if SC becomes the stop Dean event that it is shaping up to be.

Pass the Ketchup on the Titanic

OK, I got one more corny joke, John Kerry's campaign is like that movie about capital punishment "Dean Man Walking;" put the man out of his misery.

Kerry is going to have to announce soon whether or not he will take public financing (my guess is no) and still be able to "compete" with Dean in NH. Kerry, the richest man in the Senate at like $600 million, is going to tap the few million that he and his wife jointly own and dump it into NH in a last ditch effort to save his candidacy.

Good luck. Key staffers are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship (no offense guys, you are good, not rats). I used Titanic because I think the analogy is apt. Once thought the best and unsinkable ship, this baby is going down slow and steady as she pleases to be bottom of the North Atlantic.

Now, waaaay back when, in January, I liked Kerry. Not as much as the dream of Clark, perhaps, but I never thought we would be able to get him to run at that point. Then again, waaaay back in January Dean was this Kucinich-like candidate going around the country with press traveling with him to show that they were cool enough to know who he was. I think people know who he is now, or at least think they do.

If you thought Lieberman, Edwards, or Clark were in trouble, I've got news for you, Kerry's in worse shape. Which is odd considering he is 3rd in IA and 2nd in NH. But his gaps are huge and he used to be in 1st in NH for months. I can't see one state that Kerry has locked up or a good shot at after NH. SC is going to be either Clark or Edwards, Lieberman might get OK or some state. Gephardt gets MO and maybe more. AZ and MI are going to be momentum/front runner states (i.e. Dean or his beater) and then the next month, its all over.

Please, don't tell me Dean will be it, or that people like Lieberman and Kerry will still be dogging his tail. Lieberman is shaping up to be the DLC's Kucinich, a protest candidate of his own. Kerry, a sacrificial lamb of Washington-insiders (why not Gephardt? Because at least he takes stances, like what do so and say....Kerry seems so very, wishy-washy on everything) .

Who's to blame? Well, Bob Shum folks say.... But ultimately, the fault lies with the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, who, as he likes to say often enough, is running for President of the United States.

Gep takes a wobbly lead in IA

Although Dean's support is stronger than Gephardt's, Dick beats Howard 27-20 with Kerry at a distant third with 15 (the rest are in 5% or less land, sorry Edwards).

Geppy's support is broader however, and to me the most telling stat is "Dean has a significant lead among likely caucus participants with incomes topping $70,000 and those with college degrees, winning the support of 27 percent in each group. He also leads among those who are ages 18 to 44." So much for Dean's claim that he wasn't the candidate of the elite. As Jay Jaroch of Real Time with Bill Maher said "Dean went back to being the candidate for guys with 'Free Tibet' stickers on their Subarus."

Geps got the 'fogies, men, women, unions, and catholics. It will be interesting to see if Gephardt's old school GOTV or Dean's GOTV will be more sucessful in organization-centric Iowa. It is a good first test for the Dean Machine. If Dean clobbers Gephardt, Kerry better just take it like a man, because his ship is sinking faster than the Titanic. He fired his campaign director, maybe so he would have one more thing in common with Clark. Senator, that is not the thing you wanted in common. Oh well.

I now see the race as Dean, Gephardt if he wins, and Clark, because the rest are finished. If Clark can hold the South, and Gephardt can win the Midwest, then Dean will be left as the candidate of New England and other liberal bastions, which will make his case for nominating very tough. All of this is, of course, speculation until the real voters vote.

Conflicting about Clark

The New Yorker usually known as a trumpet of the liberal media (see their look into Richard Perle), had quite a critical piece on Clark today.

Posted under the "Fact" section, reporter Richard Boyer goes into great depth about why the military establishment hates Clark (or large portions of it), especially why Cohen and Shelton hate him and "fired" his ass.

Now I will admit that during the war in Kosovo, I too was not a pro-Clark man and was concerned about the course of events but I did think the US should have gone in to Kosovo (I'm a firm believer of the Clinton Doctrine-- that the US has a moral obligation to intervene in a Humanitarian Crisis, as a opposed to the Bush Doctrine-- preventive warfare [which in of itself is an oxymoron, going to war to prevent a war?]). Here's why, the mission took so long and was done with one hand tied behind out back.

But after I read Clark's first book, I saw why he did it that why and why I now agree with him and despise the old brass in the E ring of the Pentagon. I believe in the "Clark Doctrine": using coercive diplomacy ("we'd rather not bomb you into the stone age, but if you don't stop doing X, we will") and force as a last resort, WORK with allies, not a floating "coalition of the willing." Because with allies the US is even stronger and more protected against terrorist attacks, financial and military burdens and so on. It makes strategic sense and it is the nice thing to do. You never know when you might need your friends.

Clark may have overestimated the power of the first round of strikes (which were less than a US-only group would have been) in convincing "Slobo" to get out of Kosovo, but his heart was in the right place, and eventually, we did win the war without a single combat death. The Bush Administration's response to Clark's policy-- "No one will tell us where we can and cannot bomb" was, in retrospect, a omen of things to come. A tendency to act unilateralist and me-first without considering the wider implications of actions on alliances and later need for their assistance.

After all,, countries aren't lining around the block to kiss Bush's ring and give us money or troops or anything in Iraq. Hell, the Red Cross isn't even going to stick around, and the UN is scared shitless too.

The positives of working with allies far outweighs the annoyingness of dealing with those "cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys" and the rest of "Old Europe."

The coolest AA baseball team around

Of course the Salt Lake Stingers are the coolest AAA team and the Boston Red Sox are my favorite MLB team, but the best AA team is now the New Hampshire Primaries. But I really don't care about baseball, so why am I writing this?

On to my true sport, politics: Clark just nabbed a big endorsement, ex-SC Governor Jim Hodges. This is good news for his strategy of making SC the state he will win in and kill Edwards' campaign.

According to The State reporter Lee Bandy, "It could be an important endorsement, given Hodges’ popularity among black voters, who are expected to make up at least half of the turnout in the first primary state with a substantial black voting population."

Edwards, for his part, poo-pooed the move, by calling Clark an regional candidate without naming him by name, disagreeing "with those who have decided to skip Iowa and de-emphasize New Hampshire. ...If you want to run a national campaign..Then you have to be a candidate for everybody-which is why you can't select where you are going to run," he told The Boston Herald.

Hint to Edwards, if you want to run a national campaign, you have to win in some states, and you have to use your resources effectively. Having spent "roughly" $1.5M in IA and NH but the "investment" hasn't paid off "where it counts most"-- in state polls. His campaign bought $1M worth of commercials in IA and $500K in NH, "which has resulted in only a little movement in the polls." Polls of LVs [likely voters] in both states put Edwards under 10%, "the middle of the pack in both states." Edwards "started out strong in fundraising and popularity, but he has lost momentum" as others like Dean "took off." Edwards is second in overall ad spending behind Dean, who has also spent $1M in IA and $500K in NH but "has the front-runner status to show for his ad buys." '00 Gore manager Donna Brazile: "That's a bad sign to spend that amount of money and not get much traction." Brazile said Edwards' strategy relies on third-place finishes to "catapult" him to wins in SC and other 2/3 primary states, according to the Winston-Salem Journal.

Although Edwards' strategy with Clark's is about the same (minus IA), the difference is Edwards has been running for 10 months now, and has very little show for it. After all this fundraising, ad buys, trips, town hall meetings, and speachifying, he is still below double digits in NH in most polls. In IA he is in fourth place, ahead of two guys not participating and the Sharpton trio (funny how now Al Sharpton is now the most electable of all three of them). In NH, he is in either 3rd or 4th depending on which polls you look at.

The point is, Clark hasn't spent a 1/10th of that and he is in the same place Edwards is for the most part, if not better (if you believe those national polls or later state polls which have Clark in top 3-- usually 2nd-- in every poll) than Edwards. Isn't that a sign?

Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone would steal Edwards' message and ideas, he's got some of the best. And his debate performance was the best of any in Boston. But he is just not jazzing up Democrats to vote for him. His good looks make him look too Green and now is not the time for a rookie.

Strong willed, or just an Asshole?

Dean: "When people get in my face, I tend to get in theirs. Al Sharpton was in my face last night and I was not going to step one step, half a step, backwards, and I don't care who's in my face. I tend to be reflective rather later than sooner. Now, unfortunately, we know that nobody's personality is perfect. So the things that make me a strong candidate are also my Achilles heel." More Dean: "You can blame the media or blame my opponents, but the fact is, I've got to own my own words. And that's what I decided at about 3 o'clock this morning."

So, he apologized today, to squall the noise that this foot-in-mouth disease caused. The question is not whether he is racist or loves the confederate flag. The issue is whether Democrats, and Americans in general for that matter, want this man to represent the party and country.

This is a man who speaks first, asks questions later. A man who can't stand to be attacked, yet seems to think it isn't ok to attack him. A man whose first instinct is to deny he is wrong and to attack the questioner. A man who is loves to taut what he did as Governor of a puny small, rural and overwhelming white state in New England , yet won't let anyone actually read his records because they are sealed for decades. A man who spent Vietnam on a draft deferment for a "bad back" by skiing with buddies in Aspen while people like Kerry and Clark where getting their silver stars in combat. A man borne into a extremely wealthy family and named after his rich father, and went to Yale, and had a drinking problem. A man who is push polling his own supporters to avoid spending limits/matching funds now that he is awash with money (where before he was opposed to doing so when he was a nobody). If I changed a few minor details like about his state VT to TX, I think you would rightly conclude the man in question was Bush. So much for calling people "Bush-lite" huh Doctor Dean?

I know where you were last night

Ok, well at least I know where I was: Rocking the Vote in the freezing winds of Boston.

And ladies and gentlemen, we ABD folks (anybody but Dean) have found a chink in the armor: his blustering arrogance.

Flag shmag I say. We all know Dean doesn't mean that he likes the confederate flag or is a racist, but what he is is a guy who refuses to admit when he is wrong and when he changes his position. (Both of which happen often enough) It is a sign of leadership to say, hey I messed up, I am sorry or I think differently now because of X,Y, and Z and I was mistaken before.

The question that started it all was, in effect, how will you be sensitive to the needs of black people? Dean's response was, by working to help white people.

Al Sharpton jumps on Dean and says, "You are not a bigot, but you appear to be too arrogant to say 'I'm wrong,' and go on." (After the debate, Dean mistakenly attributes this comment to John Edwards.) Then, John Edwards stands up to confront Dean and delivers one of the best shots of the evening: "Because let me tell you the last thing we need in the South is somebody like you coming down and telling us what we need to do." And with that one truly heartfelt moment of anger by Edwards, his candidacy just showed some life, we have a pulse. Good work counselor.

These are the things that, Ironically, make Dean more like Bush than the other candidates. When was the last time you can recall Bush doing a 180 (lots), well how about admitting he had done a 180 (none)? How about admitting he was wrong when he does a 180 or says something stupid (none)? How about when has Bush arrogantly believed he was right and that it was his way or the highway (how about his whole damn life)? So before you start calling people Republican-lite/Bush-like Gov. Dean, take a good look in the mirror.

Because the same reason Bush is a misleader instead of a leader and, in my estimation, the worst president since those ones we forget about in the late 19th/early 20th century, is because he takes no responsibility for mistakes or changes and just tries to fix the blame on someone else, while fixing the credit on his shoulders.

The most important quote of the night, "He lost me." -- Sekou Dilday, the "Rock The Vote" Confederate Flag questioner on Dean's answer, Boston Herald, 11/5

How can Clark win?

Just read Ruy Teixeira's blog (Oct 31/Nov 1st posts) on how it could be done.

This guy is a co-author of the "Emerging Democratic Majority" this guy knows his demographics and offers a compelling view of how well democrats can be positioned in 2006/8 to sweep things up, if we have the right agenda.

Enjoy.

Why am I in Boston?

[oh yeah, that's why.]

When it turns out that Salt Lake City is way more fun, according to cranium. SLC is number nine, ahead of such boring sites as Las Vegas, New York City, and Boston.

But the list must be a bit whacked since, Minneapolis is number one (and SLC is 9). But hey, I will most likely be in number nine in a few months time anyway at this place. You better believe it.

In the meantime I am going to Rock the Vote tonight. See ya'll there.

More bad news from Baghdad

The front line news in every paper and news website was the story that 16 more soldiers died in Iraq on Sunday. The saddest part for me, was that they all were off on 2 weeks leave starting right then. Alex Brensen of the Times writes that, "The Army's experimental furlough program was introduced in September as a means to give a 'sanity check' to soldiers whose tours of duty in Iraq have been extended to a full year. "

Richard Stevenson asks the bigger question: "As Casualties in Iraq Mount, Will Resolve Falter?" I really wonder when the administration will get off its high horse and stop just defending their strategy with Orwellian rhetoric but actually fixing the problem at hand.

How about getting more troops in there with language skills (AKA Arab troops) and getting more intelligence folks looking for the guys that killing our soldiers not those long gone WMDs? Oh wait, you have no more Arab friends thanks to the rush to war. Oh I forgot too that the WMDs are the purported reason to go to war not "They tried to kill my Daddy!" Many of our troops have been killed while looking for their translator. Their lack of language skills makes them highly vulnerable to attack and deception.

Maybe the military should train its folks to learn some major languages they might need in a future war, like Arabic. No need to learn Korean, because they will all be wiped off the face of the planet if war breaks out. But Chinese for down the road (like 10-20 years) might be good for a fight over Taiwan. French and native African languages in case we have to do some peace keeping in Africa, that disaster of a continent (thanks Brits!)...You get the idea. Don't get me wrong, I think our troops are the best trained most highly skilled guys/gals out there.

But America lacks the desire/requirements that people learn a foreign language, and it hurts us internationally. Of course most people in the world might know or understand English, but that is not the point. It is a bit arrogant to expect them to, unlike the rest of the word who goes out and learns English and another foreign language in addition to their native tongue. Get with the program USA.

Iowa and South Carolina: More of the same, and Clark pulls ahead

IA
A Research 2000 poll; conducted 10/26-28 for KCCI-TV; surveyed 600 likely voters; margin of error +/- 4%. Dem sample: 400 likely Dem caucus voters; margin of error +/- 5% (release, 10/31).

Dem Caucus Matchup ---Now--- --8/27---
All Men Wom 8/27 6/4 Fav/Unfav Fav/Unfav
Dean 26% 29% 23% 25% 11% 72%/ 18% 62%/ 13%
Gephardt 26 30 22 21 27 69 / 28 64 / 24
Kerry 15 13 17 16 14 65 / 23 62 / 19
Edwards 8 5 11 6 4 53 / 25 37 / 18
Lieberman 3 5 1 12 10 52 / 40 61 / 30
Clark 3 4 2 3 n/a 36 / 27 17 / 3
Kucinich 1 1 1 1 1 20 / 18 15 / 8
Braun - - - - 2 14 / 20 18 / 15
Sharpton - - - - 1 10 / 55 11 / 57
Undec. 18 13 23 15 29

General Election Matchups
Now 8/27 Now 8/27 Now 8/27
Bush 48% 51% Bush 46% 48% Bush 47% 49%
Dean 43 38 Gephardt 43 39 Kerry 42 40
Undec. 9 11 Undec. 11 13 Undec. 11 11

Now 8/27 Now 8/27 Now 8/27
Bush 49% 52% Bush 49% 52% Bush 49% 49%
Edwards 41 35 Clark 40 35 Lieberman 41 39
Undec. 10 13 Undec. 11 13 Undec. 10 12

Pollster Del Ali, on the Dem primary: In August, Dean "held a 25%-21% lead over" Gephardt; "today, both Dean and Gephardt are tied among likely caucus voters ... Dean and Gephardt continue to run well among men where Gephardt has 30% of all men voters and Dean 29%. Kerry runs better among women voters (17%) than he does men (13%). It should be pointed out that only 13% of men voters remain undecided while 23% of the women voters are undecided."

Ali, looking to the the general: "President Bush's Democratic challengers have improved their standing in Iowa over the past two months. ... Even" Clark and Lieberman, who "opted to pass over" the '04 caucus, "improved" their standing against Bush. However, Ali notes: "Although each of the Democratic challengers trail President Bush in head to head matchups, the President fails to garnish fifty percent of Iowa's electorate in any of his matchups against his potential rivals" (release, 10/31).

SC
An American Research Group poll; conducted 10/26-30; surveyed 600 regis. voters; margin of error +/- 4% (release, 10/31).

WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
Now 9/03 8/03 4/03 Fav/Unfav ID
Clark 17% 7% -% -% 23%/ 9% 62%
Edwards 10 16 10 7 31 / 22 79
Lieberman 8 7 14 19 33 / 22 88
Dean 7 6 5 2 20 / 22 70
Gephardt 7 5 8 9 27 / 25 80
Braun 5 4 1 1 17 / 14 45
Sharpton 5 5 4 3 13 / 43 71
Kerry 4 5 6 8 19 / 17 52
Kucinich 1 1 1 - 6 / 17 30
Undec. 36 42 48 47

Is there anything new here? The results from IA mean that Gephardt is going to have a damned tough time getting rid of Dean. Look to Kerry to tag team with Gephardt to weaken Dean in IA and for each to lay off each other. Whether Geppy returns the favor in NH remains unknown, or if it will even matter (since some polls have Dean walking away with it in the Granite State).

It also shows that SC is totally up for grabs, much to Edwards dismay. If Clark can leap up and have spend 2 days there and almost no money (except for rental cars and a few staffers), then what does it say about Edwards' ad buys and Kerry's re-announce in SC? It says Kerry and Edwards suck, that's what.

For Kerry: 3rd or gone in IA. I just don't see how he can get 4th in IA and expect to gain enough mo' to take out Dean in NH or even continue on.

For Edwards: ditto. Although he can hang around until SC to see if he can bet it all on smashing Clark, I think if he can't muster 4th he is DOA 3rd he pretty much kills Kerry.

For Clark: 4th in IA would be a miricle and destroy Kerry or Edwards. 3rd in NH is a must, as is 1st in several February 3rd contests (like SC hint hint).

For Lieberman: 3rd in NH would destory Clark and or Edwards and Gephardt, especially if Gephardt wins Iowa. But that won't happen. Lieberman is doing some token stuff in NH and counting on OK and AZ to bail him out, as we all know, SC will never go for him. (Jewish thing will get him in trouble, sad fact)

For Gephardt: IA is a must win, as is MI. If Dean nabs the SEUI endorsement, which seems likely to happen next week, look for other unions to hold off on endorsing the Gepster. Another tip for Gep: every other serious candidate has a blog, even Bush, get with the program.

For Dean: again, lose both IA and NH and even though you have money, no one will care. Your metoric rise will be seen as an aberation and eventually people will notice all the fliping and flopping and double standards. Watch out for the oppo men of Kerry and Gephardt, you can't just cry "Washington," you have to explain why you've "seen the light" on oh-so many things.

For the Rest: please let us know when you drop out

Unsurprising quote of the day

Sen. Zell Miller ("D"-GA): "I'm not saying that I'm going to become a Republican, but in 2004 this, this Democrat is going to vote for George W. Bush for president" ("Hannity & Colmes").

This is the man who is eerily like the factious Idaho Democratic Senator who switched parties at the end of last night's The West Wing.

Quote of the Day

"I like Wyclef Jean and everybody thinks I'm very hip, but I am really a square, , as my kids will tell you. I don't even get to watch television. I've heard the term (metrosexual), but I don't know what it means" -- Dean, "after professing his metrosexuality" to a Boulder audience, according to the Denver Post.

Here's another good one:
"Now that I'm running for president, I've seen the light."


-- Howard Dean on Yucca Mountain, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/29 On Yucca Mountain.

Runner up:

Graham, on life expectancy, according to The St. Petersburg [FL] Times: "For the average American male, you have about 15 years (to live) after you reach 65." Graham is 66.

General Election Sources

Remember how last Thursday I had talked about African-American voter suppression attempts in Kentucky by the state GOP and how they had claimed that poll watcher placements were random? And how I doubted it? Josh Marshall once again finds a way to prove me right and good contradicting info, such as this flyer. If you are reading it and wondering what the ABC offices are, they are not the network but are the offices of the Associated Builders and Contractors, AKA a corporate trade group of the construction industry.

"A spokesman for the Fletcher campaign, Wes Irvin, tells me that Congressman Fletcher did attend a board meeting of the Executive Board of the ABC on the morning in question. But this, said Irvin, was a normal campaign outreach meeting to a group of political supporters and was unrelated to any issues about voting or ballot integrity. " yeah right....


"The flyer is signed by Mike Czerwonka, a Republican activist from Louisville. In the flyer he says he has been 'asked by the Fletcher Campaign for Governor to serve in the capacity of insuring the integrity of the election process' in portions of Louisville, and that Fletcher, the Republican candidate for governor, would himself be attending the meeting, " said Marshall. Of course, Flechter said, "who?" and pretended that he didn't talk to them. Either way, their tactics are shameful if not illegal.

Primary Sources

Here is a copy of that Rumsfeld memo that ended up in the hands of the venerable, hard-hitting news paper known as USA TODAY.

The most fun about this now infamous memo is that is exactly the opposite of what Rumsfeld has said publically and the same as what Democrats running for President have said, that War on Terrorism isn't working out like how Bush promised.

Some gems. "We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large." On a plan to get the terrorists: "The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan."

Irony Alert

It seems one of the biggest fans of the War in Iraq, a guy who had claimed it was connected to the War on Terrorism, that Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, that we would be in and out rapidly, was nearly killed when a large bomb went off near his Al Rashid Hotel.

Paul Wolfowitz was not harmed, thankfully, but senior military officials were, and today there was another attack in Iraq. This time, 30-40 people were killed because some terrorist struck a Red Cross building. Pretty sick stuff. It just goes to show that Iraq is probably the most dangerous place to live in these days (or at least in the area between Trikrit and Baghdad) and it is now a hot bed of terrorism.

I had wanted to talk about the presidential Debate in Detroit last night, but our national security and global insecurity is vastly more important than how many pot shots Lieberman got in or how many cute phrases Gephardt has (10 and 3).

This war and its aftermath have DISASTER written all over it. How could so many people be mistaken about the weapons of mass destruction? How could the Bush administration be so brazen as to lie about evidence to rush to a optional war? How they be in such a hurry that they failed to do realistic planning or let experts do their jobs, instead of giving the entire gig to the Pentagon? How could Congress bend over in the shower with Bush and reach for the proverbial oap and then say thank you afterwards?

Another poll, big difference

A Zogby Int'l poll; conducted 10/21-23; surveyed 500 likely Dem primary voters; margin of error +/- 4.5% (release, 10/24).

WH '04 Dem Primary Matchup
All Dem Ind Men Wom NH01 NH02 9/25 8/26 6/7 Fav/Unfav
Dean 40% 43% 35% 33% 46% 38% 42% 30% 38% 22% 77%/ 11%
Kerry 17 20 11 17 16 15 17 20 17 25 66 / 26
Edwards 6 5 7 8 4 4 7 2 4 2 50 / 14
Gephardt 4 4 4 5 3 5 3 6 6 7 49 / 32
Lieberman 3 1 7 4 3 3 4 5 6 10 44 / 43
Sharpton 1 - 1 1 - - 1 1 - - 13 / 57
Kucinich - 1 - - 1 - 1 1 1 2 16 / 23
Braun - - - - - - - - - - 21 / 27
Clark 6 8 4 12 2 8 5 10 2 n/a 38 / 23
Oth/Undec. 23 18 31 22 25 27 20 25 24 32

I really don't get this poll, if three other polls have Dean between 35% and 25% and Kerry at or around 18% with Clark in third, why does this one have Clark tied for 3rd/4th with Edwards (who hasn't been on the map really) and Dean at 40?

Seems to be either way off, or the other polls aren't smelling the Dean rout. Wasn't Zogby the guy that did polling for Jeanene Shaheen's ill-fated senate race in 2002, with polls that suggested it was close when in reality it was called at the close of the polls (like over 10 points)? Or was Zogby behind some other terrible numbers for 2002 polling...Maybe it was that "close" Colorado Senate race? All I can say is, I really doubt Dean is up by that much.

More nastiness in Kentucky

The driver "of a campaign bus rented" by KY GOP GOV nominee/Rep. Ernie Fletcher "deflated a tire on a van owned" by the KY Democrat Party "at a Fletcher appearance in Shelbyville"

John Cheves of the Lexington Herald-Leader writes "Democrats use the van to carry The Job Terminator, a large, Fletcher-like head with sunglasses that party workers puckishly parade around at Fletcher events. The caricature is intended to tie the GOP candidate to job losses and the weak national economy."

Refusing to lose more jobs, the Fletcher camp won't fire the idiot that was caught by no less than two eye-witnesses. "It's the first time anything like this has happened," said Jeff Derouen, the Democratic spokesman. "It's not a good development." No indeed, but just watch it get worse. Republicans have no trouble getting their hands messy to get the job done.

Getting down and dirty in the Bluegrass state

Kentucky's Gubintorial election in November is seen by many as a good bellweather of Bush's re-election chances, not just in this state but in general. And right now, AG Ben Chandler, the Democrat whose party has been tarnished by the current adulterous Governor, is neck and neck with US Rep. Ernie Fletcher, a Bush yes-man.

There have been tons of negative ads in this race, both Democrats and Republicans have comparied the opposition to dogs. But the old "southern strategy" is coming home to roost again in KY.

Jefferson Co. GOPers "intend to place Election Day challengers at 59 voting precincts in predominantly black neighborhoods, a move that NAACP leaders yesterday called blatant intimidation. The GOP election workers, most of whom live outside the targeted precincts in western and central Louisville, Portland and Newburg, will be on hand to challenge voters who they suspect aren't eligible."

Jefferson Co. GOP chair Jack Richardson IV said the "precincts were chosen at random or because" the GOP has had "trouble finding registered voter in those areas to serve as election workers. The challengers, who will receive the same training as precinct workers, could fill in if needed."

Dems called the GOP "challengers an attempt to intimidate black voters in what is expected to be a close race" between Fletcher and Chandler. Jefferson Co. Dem chair Tim Longmeyer: "They have only one purpose: to intimidate and suppress votes in the West End and other minority areas" (Shafer, Louisville Courier-Journal, 10/23).

Somehow I highly doubt that this polling places were chosen "randomly." The GOP has a history of alligning itself to the worst racists and religious zealots in the south, and have been rewarded with a sweep in the 2000 presidental election and an ever-increasing edge in state congressional delagations. Enough is enough. When will the GOP realize that intimidating blacks in the south doesn't get them votes from blacks in the north, or east or west? Why are they supprised that Bush got only 9% of the Black vote in 2000?