A Solo Dialogue
Cuba Travel Restrictions Tightened -
Some moves are so blatantly political as to be beyond comment.
More on 9/11 Commission -
Bob Kerrey says he may quit panel because of the restrictions that have been placed on it.
Why does the WH feel like they need to put up such a protective shield about this? President Clinton, Vice-President Gore have agreed to speak with the full panel, but Bush and Cheney have refused. It is really an outrage, but then again there has been next to no accountability by this administration for the events of 9/11. By looking at their subsequent actions, it would be hard to tell that there was anyone at fault for the compete breakdown in the intelligence field, and in our domestic defense.
9/11 Commission Facing Opposition -
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that
Denny Hastert is opposing giving the 9/11 Commission another 60 days to complete its work, despite the "support" of President Bush.
The WH really does not want this report coming out, because it fears that there will be politically damaging information in it, so I don't think it is a stretch to believe that the WH is privately telling Hastert it is OK to oppose the extension.
I could be wrong, and if I am I would expert the WH to put a real squeeze on the Speaker, otherwise, political games are being played in an area that simply should be politics-free.
(As an aside -- if the WH hadn't been so opposed to a commission for so long, this could have all been done last year, instead of during an election year.)
[UPDATE -
Josh Marshall is thinking along the same lines that I am on this.]
[FURTHER UPDATE -
Calpundit agrees too.]
New Polling for Next Week -
These
poll numbers from ARG for
GA,
NY &
OH are slightly more favorable for John Edwards, even though he continues to trail in all of them. His GA numbers are down to single digits (37-45).
The debates on 2/26 and 2/29 are going to be crucial. OH and MD are going to be critical states for John Edwards, but we cannot afford to focus on them and lose huge in NY and CA. It is certainly an uphill battle, but one that can and should be won.
The Latest Howard Mortman Column is up -
Read it
here.
Just wondering -
about the similarities in the timing of the proposals to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning and the define marriage. Both proposals touch on hot button topics and seem to be push by a Bush (one Elder, one Younger) at a time when his electoral hopes are in trouble.
Super Tuesday Polling -
Some of these polls are dated, but clearly Edwards is in the underdog position. The upcoming debates should help out a lot, and so will some overconfidence on the part of Kerry supporters, but the things that keeps me most comforted is that in New Hampshire, Iowa and Wisconsin,
Senator Edwards closed strong, and got a good percentage of the voters that decided at the last minute.
Edwards news from the ground -
I was out passing out fliers for John Edwards at the Stamford train station this morning. The response for Senator Edwards was generally positive from those commuters who were more than sleepwalking at 6:45 am. People really seem to like him, and I hope this will transfer into votes.
It seems to be the conventional wisdom that Connecticut will be a Kerry state next Tuesday. But I would remind everyone that back in 1992, everyone thought Clinton would take the state handily -- he did have some extensive CT roots having gone to Yale. But Clinton ended up losing it to Jerry Brown, so the CW isn't necessarily accurate.
[UPDATE - After having stood in the cold this morning, let me formally endorse the idea of having primaries in June -- my hands have only just regained all their feeling.]
It is Official -
Bush supports
amending the Constitution to define marriage.
I am sure the people at
The Corner are rejoicing, while
Andrew Sullivan is slowly being driven back into the Democratic fold.
Apology? -
As apologies go Secretary Paige's is pretty weak, but an apology is an apology.
"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms. I also said, as I have repeatedly, that our nation's teachers, who have dedicated their lives to service in the classroom, are the real soldiers of democracy, whereas the NEA's high-priced Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children regardless of skin color, accent or where they live. But, as one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better."
I am still waiting for Zell Miller's.
California Poll -
An
LA Times poll has Kerry ahead of Edwards 56 - 24. I think (hope) that the upcoming debates will shift those numbers more favorably to the Edwards camp.
My feelings are that Edwards needs to take at least 2 states next Tuesday (Georgia and Maryland?, Ohio?, Minnesota?), and stay somewhat competitive in the rest to continue this race to the next week's Southern states. With Kerry already running his "make no mistakes" campaign, I think it can be done.
The Two Party System -
Jeff Jarvis gives a good defense of the two party system.
However, in the end, I think that Nader will be a nonfactor in this race. Like Perot or Buchanan, the second time around is not as good as the first time for fringe candidates.
Terrorist Organization? -
As if to follow up of Zell Miller's comments this morning (
Democrats hate President Bush more than they hate Osama Bin Laden), Rod Paige (a/k/a the Secretary of Education -- bonus points if you knew that) called the National Education Association (a/k/a the teachers union) a
terrorist organization.
I would imagine that a public White House slap down will be coming soon for Secretary Paige, but I have no doubt that Karl Rove and crew are loving every moment of this. But it simply serves to emphasize the point for those who didn't learn from 2002, the GOP will use the politics of the War on Terror whenever they feel they need to hurt the Democrats. I can only hope that unlike in 2002, it will turn out to be bad politics, as well as, bad policy.
Miller Off the Deep End -
I don't know if you heard Zell Miller on Imus this morning, but his comments were completely outrageous.
It is clear that Zell Miller is off the Democratic reservation, and has been for some time. I don't know what events occurred to drive him away, but I don't have any problem with that. (I have to be intellectually honest here, we loved it when Jim Jeffords defected and enjoy whenever John McCain zings the President.)
If he chooses to support President Bush the Younger, castigate John Kerry and other Democrats, and propose Amendments to the Constitution allowing for the placing of 10 Commandments in public buildings, all the while still saying he is a Democrat, that is fine -- I disagree with him strongly, but he certainly has the right.
What he does not have the right to do is to say what he said on the Imus show this morning:
that many Democrats hate President Bush more than they hate Osama Bin Laden.
I know that is popular in conservative circles to malign the patriotism of any (or every) Democrat, but saying that we hate the President of the United States more than we hate the man who organized the murder of over 3,000 of our citizens is simply beyond the pale.
Edwards v. Kerry -
I was underwhelmed by the This Week face off between Kerry and Edwards. Both came across as fine, but neither had a real punch at the other guy, and while ABC wanted to play it as a debate of sorts, but clearly it wasn't. Kerry tried to take a shot at Edwards regarding experience, but you could tell his heart just wasn't in it. And while Kerry's answers were dreadfully boring, it was hard for Edwards to score any points in that particular format.
Kerry already has his general election hat on, but he had better be very careful about March 2nd.
Debates -
As a group, Democrats like debates; we think that every election, from dog catcher to President, should have lots and lots of debates. I can go into lots of potential psychological reasons into why that is so (some positive - Democrats generally like vigorous debate on issues; some negative - we also can get obsessed with process over product), but as simple blanket rule, Democrats like debates.
John Edwards has begun to ask John Kerry for debates in
Georgia, in addition to a Los Angeles Times/CNN debate coming up next week. Edwards has to demand debates, of course, because he needs the free media and he is behind in both the polls and delegates.
But even if John Kerry refuses to any more debates, John Edwards will look the better for it, because while Democrats like candidates who want debates, and the converse is also true, candidates who refuse to debate are looked at with suspicion.
The Edwards camp should increase the drumbeat for debates, even if John Kerry refuses to have any more. They may find they end up picking up as many voters as they could in any debate.
Super Tuesday Polling -
I am trying to find polling for the Super Tuesday states, so far mostly unsuccessfully.
I would be remiss, however, in not pointing out this
CNN/USA Today poll (go to question #3) that has
John Edwards ahead of President Bush 54-44 among the coveted likely voters.
Media Swoon -
The media swoon (such as this
Howard Fineman piece) for
John Edwards is beginning to come into full swing.
It certainly won't last forever, but I'll enjoy it while for as long as it does.
KERRY v. EDWARDS -
All I can say to the Kerry camp is
Bring It On.
BTW - It was hardball to step all over Edward's campaign speech, but you don't want to piss Edwards off too much, because if he goes negative, especially aggressively negative, Kerry will live to rue the day.
Just between you and me, my loyal 2 1/2 readers, the Kerry campaign is scared to death of
John Edwards. He is just the best politician I have seen in a long time at giving a stump speech, and that includes Bill Clinton.
Plus the Wisc. results show he attracts Republicans and Independants. I can't wait to see Edwards v. Kerry mano e mano, no Dean, no Kucinich, and no Al Sharpton.
Bring It On.
Maybe not over yet -
Early Wisconsin numbers:
John Kerry - 41
John Edwards - 33
Howard Dean - 17
New Reality TV Show -
With the signing of Alex Rodriguez, and possibly Greg Maddux, the Yankees appear poised to field an entire team (not an entire lineup, but an entire
TEAM) of All-Stars. (They currently have 17 players who have been selected to the All-Star Game.)
But what I really think is occurring is that King George Steinbrenner is jealous of all the attention that his friend Donald Trump is getting and is really setting up this summers smash TV hit: Who wants to be the New York Yankees' Second Baseman?
YES needs the programming and all that the second baseman on the Yankee is ever going to have to do is field, and, of course, survive in this clubhouse of gigantic egos, but anybody can try to do that. (If the Yankees ever need their ninth hitter to get a big hit, that guy is getting pinch-hit for anyway, so batting isn't a real concern.)
Think of the possible competitions: who can Club the best with Jeter; turn the double play Kevin Millar coming at him with spikes up; hide Giambi's "special pills" from the media and the league; run the quickest, and hide the best, when Kevin Brown begins to have a tirade after someone asking him who he is feeling; pretend they have sympathy for A-Rod when he complains that the NY media doesn't get him; manipulate the Ques-Tec machine so Maddux can have his giant strike zone back; and, of course, who can best beat up ground crew members on the road.
Like American Idol, you can have open auditions during Spring Training with a panel of old Yankees deciding who will move on. (Maybe Yogi, Reggie and Darryl Strawberry?) You can have a different contestant each week until the All Star break and then have the field narrowed until August 31, when the Yankees have to have their post-season roster finalized.
Just think of it, King George sitting down with two players each Sunday night and turning to one of them and uttering his phrase:
Sorry son, you're cut.
Mortman on "Values" -
My friend
Howard Mortman has a new piece out on Democrats and "values." I would urge you to read it, but you should understand beforehand that Howard is just wrong.
Howard spends a great deal of his piece using Howard Dean as the spokesman for the Democratic Party. (As an aside - I am pretty sure that Howard M. must realize that Howard D. has pretty much been relegated to the sidelines as the official spokesman for the Democratic Party - despite the hopes of the GOP.) But Howard D. was right; it is silly for the FCC to be investigating the Super Bowl halftime show.
I was disappointed by the breast incident at the Super Bowl, but then again I found the entire halftime show distasteful, and a number of the commercials too.
But not all Americans agree with Howard, Michael Powell and the Right Wing that the government must step in and do something about this because it shows the decline of our country's "values." For most Americans values are not something that is/should/can be legislated by the government. Values are what we teach our children and share with our neighbors.
Somehow the Right Wing, which used to hate government intervention in anything, now wants the government to legislate morality. But is it needed? Didn't the outrage at the halftime stunt serve as a warning to both the NFL and CBS? Do you think that MTV's decision to move risque videos to a later time was because of Congress, the FCC, or because they were worried that parents might pay a little closer attention to their children's viewing habits.
The "values" debate always seems to be argued by the Right Wing on their terms - usually Hollywood. But when it comes to other "values," they are silent. Where is their outrage over big business fleecing their stockholders? Where is their outrage over children not getting proper healthcare? Instead the government they are demanding that the FCC must investigate Janet Jackson?s breast. (And if we are going to investigate her breast, shouldn't at least some of the investigation be focused on her nipple ring/shield?)
As for the Republicans running "values" campaigns. It will work in the most conservative areas (Howard cites two conservative candidates running in primaries where the GOP will likely win), but the "Hollywood" argument doesn't have a great resonance outside that particular echo chamber.
Will the Democrats get into this "values" argument? I hope not. Instead they should spend their time campaigning on the issues that are of greatest concern to Americans, jobs, health care, Iraq, and terrorism. We will leave values (real values) in the hands of those people who we can trust with the job - parents, grandparent, friends neighbors, churches, synagogues, and the like.
Like most Americans I would prefer if politically appointed bureaucrats stay out of deciding what my values should be.
Nonetheless, you should read
Howard's piece.
Reijo Sanio -
I haven't posted anything in a few days, despite some interesting event that I would normally be all over, because I recently got some sad news about the passing of someone who meant a lot to me.
I can't necessarily say that we were close, if only because he lived 4000 miles away, but he had a real impact on the person I have become (at least the good parts). I had hoped that there would be time for additional memories, but I will certainly cherish the ones that I have. My thought and prayers are with Sirkka, Ikka and Iina.
THE CURSE OF LIVING OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY
John Ellis states that the John Kerry story is being pushed by someone with an axe to grind. But he says it in such a way as to suggest that everyone inside the Beltway knows who it is. (And since Chris Lehane's name has been thrown around so much already, I would eliminate him.)
BUSH V. KERRY POLL -
These
Washington Post polling numbers certainly help explain why the attacks on Kerry have picked up.
Bush - 43%
Kerry - 51%
KERRY ON IMUS -
When Kerry asked about the Drudge Intern allegations this morning he responded: "There's nothing to report, there's nothing to talk about, I'm not going to talk about it," adding, "The answer is no."
I was underwhelmed by his response to for two reasons: 1) he waited until about 5 minutes into the interview for Imus to bring it up, when it should have been the first thing he discussed ("Don, let's talk about the elephant in the room); and 2) his denial was tepid, where was the outrage or the expression of resignation about how this was expect from his "opponents"?
The interview did get his denial out there, but he had a chance to score some points. If it is true, he is dead anyway, so I think that this was a missed opportunity.
KERRY & INTERNS -
Kos comments on the Kerry/intern story. There appears to be more smoke than fire to this story, but it is still early.
BUSH & EMBARASSING INCIDENTS -
The White House has a real problem with the National Guard story, one that will not go away, despite any Kerry scandals, and a problem that is one of its own makings.
First, it seems to me (and to most people) that what happened is pretty simple. President Bust the Elder (then just Congressman Bush) pulled some strings to get his son into the Texas Air National Guard, because that was a lot safer posting than rice paddies in Vietnam. President Bush the Younger attended the necessary and required meetings at first, learned how to fly jet planes in 1969, and probably really enjoyed doing that. In 1972, he got a job in Alabama working on a political campaign and asked to be allowed to continue his service there. He went to a meeting or two at first in Alabama, probably to check in, realized that no one really knew who he was, or why he was there, and never went to again, or went very infrequently. In 1973, when he was to be discharged, he realized, or someone told him, that he was short of the necessary points, so he makes them up through cramming them in. In 1973 he is honorably discharged.
To me that is the story in broad outline form, and nothing anyone has produced or said seem to indicate that any other story makes sense. It is embarrassing, but hardly the stuff that will turn people out into the streets and storming the White House.
However this incident seems to me to be like another embarrassing incident from his "youth", his
1976 DUI arrest. Both incidents do reflect badly on him, but they happened 25 - 30 years ago, and there is nothing that can be done about them now. Confess to them, apologize, and admit that you have learned your lesson, and everyone will move on.
Instead, the campaign glossed over the DUI arrest and, I would argue,
nearly cost him the 2000 election.
In 1998 Bush was asked whether he had been arrested after 1968 for any reason. The Dallas Morning News reported that he answered, "No'' and that Karen Hughes abruptly ended the conversation.
It is understandable that you would want to deny the DUI story, but the lesson that should have been learned by all politicians at this point is that it is not the crime, it is the cover-up that kills, and that everything comes out in the end.
If Bush had been upfront about the issue of DUI in early 2000, it would have been a non-issue. People didn't change their vote for Bush because he had a DUI conviction, they changed it because he hid the truth.
But instead of learning the lesson from the DUI experience, the WH is handling the National Guard issue the same way. Even at this late point, it would be better to confess what everyone assumes anyway. There will be outrage and fuss and blunder, but then it will go away.
For example, The President's answers are a little too slick:
Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of the records and said there's no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.
President Bush: Yeah, they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.
That is as slick an answer as you can give, if the scenario that I paint above is the truth. It leaves the viewer with the impression that he attended all the necessary meetings in Alabama, but a close reading shows that he doesn't say that at all, but that he reported. The answer fits perfectly into my scenario.
And the WH continues to be too cute by half in releasing single dental records, pay records, but not the President's entire military file. Here is what the
President told Tim Russert:
Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?
President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files, I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably you were. And, absolutely. I mean, I,
Russert: But you would allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?
President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I, you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records. And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it. What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is may not be a true service.
Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
President Bush: Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000, by the way.
But now WH spokesman says Scott McClellan: "No, I think the question was payroll records, payroll records that would show you served. It was relating to the issue of whether or not you served."
That wasn't the question, and that is not what the President said. Nonetheless, it doesn't appear that the WH is going to release the entire file. Until it is, or until the President changes his tale, the story will have legs. There is blood in the water, so until a satisfactory answer is arrived at, the questions will remain, and so will the story.
DRUDGE & INTERNS -
Matt Drudge is reporting that John Kerry may have an intern problem.
Clark out? -
Rumors are out there that Clark will be out after barely cracking double digits tonight.
Kos says that he has cancelled a fundraiser scheduled for tomorrow.
This is a good thing for the party, and a very good thing for John Edwards, who, as I haven't mentioned lately, I have endorsed.
Ask and Ye Shall Receive -
Midday exit polling from various sources:
TN
Kerry - 46
Edwards - 28
Clark - 15
Dean - 7
VA
Kerry - 48
Edwards - 25
Clark - 11
Dean - 8
No exit polling -
I haven't found any exit polling for either VA or TN. I'll keep searching, and of course, feel free to send any to me.
If it's Tuesday, it must be Tennessee (& Virginia) -
Voters in TN and VA (where on primary day in 1996, yours truly was actually on the ballot as a delegate to the VA State Democratic Convention) have their say in the primary process today.
It seems likely that John Kerry will win both states, maybe handily (15% +). The question then becomes will Edwards or Clark bow out tonight. I think that if one of them comes in third in both states (probably Clark), then the time will have come for him to bow out. A split second/third means that both can claim some success and continue their campaigns.
In reality this is make or break time for John Edwards. He needs to finish second or first in both TN and VA. If he does, Clark will either drop out, or lose the attention of the national media. If Edwards can do that, and then have Kerry finish off Dean in Wisconsin, then we could finally be down to a two man race. Edwards needs this to be a two man race by March 3, if he is to have any hope of winning the nomination.
If any of those things don't happen, the race will remain too crowded, no real alternative to Kerry will be able to emerge, and he will have a cakewalk to the nomination. If it is a two man race, Edwards national numbers will improve, and the most compelling reason to vote for Kerry, his ability to beat President Bush the Younger in November, will dissipate a bit.
Even if this convergence happens (and it is more likely than not, I think) there is still a fly in the ointment (or more correctly, two.) The Edwards strategy depends on Clark and Dean dropping out, or at least Clark dropping out and Dean being marginalized.
But Wes Clark is not a career politician, and not a Democratic insider (or perhaps even a Democrat), so he may decide that he doesn't have to leave the race now, in fact he has already said he plans to stay in. The hope in the Edwards camp would be that his Congressional and Clintonista backers will sit him down and say, "General, thank you, you have done your service to your country and your party, and it will not be forgotten, but you can't win, so now is the time to step aside."
Of course, Edwards has to finish second (or dare to dream first) in both TN and VA tonight.
Another Edwards Endorsement -
Christopher Hitchens has endorsed John Edwards, sort of, kinda, but only because his editors made him.
Bush on Meet the Press -
I read the
transcript of President Bush the Younger's
Meet the Press appearance before I watched him and, wow, what a difference. His answers read much better than they sounded, in part because of his body language (why does he always have his head on a tilt?) and partly because it seemed like he was struggling with many of the answers. On TV it looked as though he was trying to remember what his lines were, and a couple of time he looked downright confused.
I cannot remember a time, since he has been President, when Bush has looked good when responding to real questioning. He is not good at press conferences, and there is a reason he does not appear often on the Sunday shows, as Russert illustrated.
I can't imagine than he was unprepared on any of these topics, yet he looked uncomfortable and not 100% assured of what he was saying. It wasn't even a substance problem (although there was very little of that), but a presentation problem.
I think that we have seen the last non-friendly interview with the President until after the election. He will take a hit from this, but he will recover. If he gave this interview in October, I think that it would have been devastating. But there is a lot of time, and this interview will not register for any voters come November.
Now lest you think that my partisan leanings are coloring my opinions, Imus was absolutely killing the President this morning;
Peggy Noonan was disappointed (and lets face it, if Bush is disappointing Peggy, he must have been bad, she his biggest and most annoying cheerleader -- although don't worry too much, she was still able to favorably compare him to Reagan); the guys on
The Corner are critical; of course,
Josh Marshall is too;
Outside the Beltway though he was ok; and
Oxblog think Russert went soft on Bush.
Dean Email -
Apparently Howard Dean has decided Wisconsin is his firewall state. Here is a portion of his email:
Dear Supporter,
The entire race has come down to this: we must win Wisconsin.
We must launch our new television advertisement on Monday in the major markets in Wisconsin.
. . .
We will get a boost this weekend in Washington, Michigan and Maine, but our true test will be the Wisconsin primary. A win there will carry us to the big states of March 2-and narrow the field to two candidates. Anything less will put us out of this race.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that he will not get a boost this Saturday, so Wisconsin is an obvious choice: liberal Democratic electorate with a strong progressive, anti-establishment culture. I don't think he will win there, but at least he seems to recognize that a guerilla campaign of cherry picking delegates all the way to the convention won't win him the nomination, or help the party to beat President Bush the Younger in November.
The only remaining questions is will Clark or Edwards still be around to be the alternative to Kerry come Super Tuesday (March 2).
(BTW - It is hard to consider any city in Wisconsin (other than Milwaukee) as a "major market.")
Some Raw Numbers-
Clearly John Kerry was last night's winner, and is now the undisputed frontrunner. The media spin has Edwards, Dean and Clark fighting for that second place mantel. But here are some raw numbers to determine what the race really looks like, absent the spin.
I have tabulated the total votes cast, the percentage each candidate has gotten and the total delegates won.
A couple of caveats: 1) I have combined primary votes with caucus delegates, which is a little like mixing apples and oranges (well maybe oranges and grapefruits), but it is still a good raw number for comparison of the candidates; 2) the percentage is simply adding up the percentage that the candidate has gotten in each state, so yesterday the total percentage was 700, for the entire race, the percentage is 900; and 3) I don't count superdelegates in the delegate count, those delegates are not committed, even if they have already announced who they plan to support - I am only counting committed delegates through the electoral process.
So with those caveats, here is the race in raw numbers:
Yesterday
Votes - (Total % of Vote) - Delegates
Kerry - 536,947 - (293) - 129
Edwards - 352,206 - (139) - 61
Clark - 214,416 - (123) - 48
Dean - 113,818 - (70) - 4
Sharpton - 48,915 - (20) - 1
Kucinich - 18,158 - (14) - 0
Total to date
Kerry - 622,304 - (370) - 162
Edwards - 379,579 - (183) - 79
Clark - 241,673 - (136) - 48
Dean - 172,141 - (114) - 20
Sharpton - 49,260 - (20) - 1
Kucinich - 21,301 - (16) - 0
The most shocking numbers to see are Howard Dean's. He is a clear fourth, and well behind Kerry and Edwards. Clearly, Dr. Dean has to win at some point soon. Edwards seems a pretty comfortable second, but a good showing in Michigan could create some real separation. Clark had a big win in OK, but where does he go to get his numbers up? At best he could split TN or VA with Edwards next week. What he really needs is a state to make a do or die stand.
Traitor Al -
This Village Voice article details the extent that "Rev." Al Sharpton has given his campaign over to a GOP operative.
I've said it
over and
over and
over and
over, I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it until someone finally listens. Al Sharpton doesn't give two hoots about the Democratic Party, and if we continue to lie down with him, we're going to get bit, again.
Rumors, exit polls and guesses -
The Corner has John Edwards comfortably ahead in SC and ahead of Clark & Kerry in Oklahoma.
Kerry looks to be comfortably ahead in MO, DE & AZ.
Roy Moore for Prez -
Although I cannot endorse his
potential candidacy, I would none the less strongly encourage Mr. Moore to throw his hat in the ring.
For those who have forgotten, Mr. Moore is the former Alabama Supreme Court justice who was removed from office for installing the 10 Commandments in the courthouse during the dark of night without consulting any of his colleagues.
He would get less votes than Ralph Nader did in 2000, but could he get 2000 votes in Florida or Ohio? Sure, and as we know that is really all it might take.
Poll Closings Tonight:
7:00 pm: South Carolina
8:00 pm: Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma
9:00 pm: Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota
What to watch for tonight -
I see three story lines tonight:
1)
Oklahoma/South Carolina: The latest polling shows a real close race with Kerry and Clark about tied and Edwards only a little behind in Oklahoma, and Edwards ahead by a little bit over Kerry in SC. These are the only real battleground states tonight and will get the most analysis. If Kerry can win both, then the nomination fight will essentially be over, no matter what Howard Dean would like to think.
2)
Can Dean win New Mexico?: Dean now thinks that he might win in NM, which would be huge for him. NM has early voting, and a lot of ballots were cast while Dean looked to be the frontrunner. Plus, NM has a strong liberal base that should be attracted to his message. A Dean win combined with a Edwards win in SC and a Clark win in Oklahoma (a/k/a the Perfect Storm) causes this to be a real race again. Kerry will still be the "frontrunner", but which one will become the credible challenger?
3)
Will Joe-Mentum quit tonight, or wait until tomorrow?: It is conceivable, I guess, that Lieberman will stay in the race, if the Perfect Storm happens, maybe he sticks around. But even in that event, he would need a credible finish (2nd or very strong 3rd) somewhere, and unless the voters of Delaware come through for him, I just don't see it happening.
Crack for Political Junkies -
You may have noticed that I have been posting an inordinate amount of polling numbers lately. There are three reasons for this: 1) I am being a little lazy; 2) they are fascinating insights into the volatility of this election season; and 3) most importantly, polls are crack for political addicts.
Political junkies can never get enough of polling, so as an addict, I include polls frequently. I would like to promise that this will change in the future, but I can't. I will try to provide more of my insight into the polls meanings (after all that is why my 2 1/2 loyal readers keep coming back), but I make no promises.
A couple of polls causing trouble in the WH -
First the caveats: it is early, the Democrats have had the stage to themselves and no one is really focusing on Presidential politics yet, but . . .
Kerry 51
Bush 43
(
Quinnipiac University poll)
&
Kerry 53
Bush 46
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll)
Closer in OK? -
Survey USA has a much closer race win OK, with Clark ahead at 31%, Kerry at 25% and Edwards at 23%. They are saying that the race is still volatile, and that Clark's lead appears soft.
SC and OK are going to be the bellwethers in tomorrow's votes. If Clark and/or Edwards can't win one, then they're gone.
Latest Zogby -
The latest
Zogby polls are out, with Kerry easily in Missouri, and comfortably ahead in Arizona. Edwards is up by 5% in S.C., and Kerry and Clark are neck and neck in Oklahoma.
Dean is not very impressive anywhere in these polls, clearly his best hope will be NM, where there was a lot of early voting.
Kerry Dirt -
Kausfiles has begun unloading on John Kerry. Now, Mickey Kaus has a pretty solid history of not liking John Kerry, but this is certainly a taste of what the GOP will unload on him.
Frankly, none of this stuff is too damaging. Johnny Chung is so 1990's, and no one is going to be too shocked that a four term Senator has lots of contacts with Washington lobbyists. But you can expect a steady drumbeat of anti-Kerry stuff between now and August.
Yeah Pats!
Having learned my lesson from my Red Sox drama of October, I haven't mentioned the Pats all year. So, now that I can no longer jinx them -- Go Pats!
A great game, but too bad that the defense waited until the last quarter to play their worst football of the year. I haven't seen the Patriots look as confused all year as they did on the last Panthers touchdown, or tackle as bad as they did on the DeFoster touchdown run. But I still had no doubts once they got the ball on the 40 that Brady would get a them in position for a field goal try, and no doubt that Venitari would knock down any try he got, even if it was from 57 yards.
15 games in a row is amazing, and while not quite on par with the '73 Dolphins, is a only a small step down. Because of they way they played close games all season, this team will never get their full due, but they are one of the best teams in football history, and have a potential to be put in the Steeler, Cowboy, 49ers category, if they can get back again next year.
BTW - Having seen what silence does, do not expect any future commentary on UConn basketball, and I probably should stop writing about John Edwards too, but I won't go that far.
