Electability, again

Let me be clear about something: I am not going to disparage Kerry supporters for their doubts. I can understand those doubts. We desperately want to defeat Bush. We don't want to put up an opponent that he can easily defeat. But that is precisely why I support Dean over Kerry. As far as I can tell, looking at the entire field, Dean is the only one that rises, in my view, to the status of being "electable". Let me put it another way: I am tired of political campaigns that are based more on the fear of what might happen. I am more interested in supporting a campaign that is about pushing the agenda instead of merely reacting to it. I have been online for nearly 20 years. I was an early participant in Usenet online discussions. I can remember that I used to go out of my way to compose posts that people could not misunderstand. I would put caveats everywhere. I would qualify everything I said. I would try not to offend ANYONE's sensibilities. The result was a rambling mess of posts that bored people much more than it informed them. I actually got into the top 25 posters ranking for a few weeks running. But most of what I wrote was completely useless shit because no one wanted to read it. And guess what? Despite all my best efforts, people STILL misunderstood them. People were STILL offended by them. It was then I realized something: you can't prevent people from misinterpreting what you say. You can't prevent opponents from distorting your position. The best you can do is present your opinions in as clear and concise a fashion as possible and then be prepared to rebut the attacks and clarify the misunderstandings AFTER THE FACT. The Democrats, in my opinion, are dominated by an attitude that says they have to find the perfect candidate who is immune to criticism, will never make mistakes and will appeal to everyone. I'm here to tell you that it ain't gonna happen folks. If we waste time worrying about how our message might be distorted and abused then we will get no where (i.e., exactly where we are now). What we need now is a damn-the-torpedoes approach that does not run away from potential conflicts but, instead, relishes them (see previous post). Howard Dean has taken positions that established analysts insist are political suicide. But those positions have brought him to within breathing distance of bumping off the nominal front-runners in the nomination. Why should we then listen to those self-same analysts when they say that, even if Dean were to win the nomination, he has no chance of beating Bush? The "electability" meme is one that should be taken out, shot, drawn, quartered, hung from a tree, burned at the stake, buried to its neck in and anthill and left to rot in the sun until nothing is left but bare white bones (and then those should be ground up and scattered to the four winds). Success requires a thousand handmaidens. Defeat will take care of itself.

The snake continues to bite, we continue to grow stronger

I've been thinking about something lately and the recent brouhaha over accusations from the Gephardt campaign that the MoveOn primary may be rigged to favor Dean just made me realize it even more. There is a fundamental difference in attitude in the Dean campaign that I just don't see in the campaigns of any other Democrat. It has to do with how Howard Dean, his campaign and his supporters react to accusations that they are doing something wrong. For the last several years the Democrats have been running scared. Jumping at every hint of a suggestion that they are either engaged in some impropriety or are taking an approach that could fail. Every time the Wurlitzer geared up against Clinton and Gore it was easy for them to find (usually anonymous) Democrats who would side with the critics against the party's leaders. Why? Because they just don't like the confrontation that would result if they tried to fight back against the critics. Howard Dean is different. He doesn't just run from the critics, he actually seems to RELISH their criticism. His campaign's greatest leaps have come at precisely those moments when the chorus was loudest against him. When he came out against the war he was criticized for taking a stance that wouldn't play in a post 9/11 world. The result was national exposure that brought him to the attention of activists who might never have heard of him. When the war was over critics said Dean would suffer for his anti-war stance. Dean responded by continuing to tout that stance even when it was most unpopular. The result was increased support amongst those who became interested in him because he demonstrated that he could be a fighter when he needed to be. When the Kerry campaign started attacking him the Dean campaign turned it into a net positive and again boosted Dean's support. And now the Gephardt campaign is accusing the MoveOn organization of rigging their primary to favor Dean and Dean is responding back with both barrels. The Dean campaign thrives on these kinds of attacks. The more they come the more he, his campaign and his supporters re-double their efforts. Every time an establishment pundit reflexively says, "but of course Dean can't win" it just encourages Dean supporters to work harder to prove them wrong. So keep those criticisms coming folks. They are like mana from heaven. The more you say them the more convinced we become that we are doing the right thing. The snake bites hardest just before it dies.

Brother's Keeper

I went to a small gathering of local activists in the Portland area the other day. We talked about many matters, most related to the question of getting the Democrats to take back the political high ground in this country. One of the participants brought up the point that the Democrats have lost the moral argument in the last couple of decades. The Republicans have pushed a message that says that government is the cause of all of our problems and that if we just get rid of its influence on our lives we can achieve great things through our own individual strength of character. This is a message at odds with the traditional Democratic message that this country sinks or swims together and that government is a vehicle by which we can keep all of us afloat instead of just the few who can afford to buy the best life-jackets. Democrats lost sight of that message when they became to focused on the narrow interests of special interest groups (whether it was leftist social organizations in the 70s or corporatists in the 80s and 90s). They lost the moral argument that they knew how best to elevate the spirit of the American people. The Republicans became the defenders of the little guy against the depravations of the government while Democrats became the defenders of the "radical" groups who wanted to use the might of the government to force their social agenda on the rest of us. When the Democrats started to lose the argument they started to lose the power. When they realized they were the power they searched around for the cause and came to the mistaken conclusion that the Republicans had the better argument (self-interest over the interests of all) but that it needed to be tempered with the compassion of Democratic ideals. Thus was born the New Democratic movement of Bill Clinton and the DLC. This was an argument that stemmed the tide, for a while. But it was ultimately a losing argument because it included a concession that the Republican core philosophy was right and the Democratic core philosophy was wrong. All it would take for the Republicans to seal their resurgence into a "permanent" supremacy would be to adopt the New Democratic line about compassionate implementation of conservative principles. Thus was born George W. Bush. What this proves is a basic fact of life: you can't win the game if you allow the opposition to write all the rules. What the Democrats need to do is regain the moral high ground. A narrow focus on issues will get them no where as long as the Republicans can continue to insist that they are the defenders of all that is good and right in the American soul. With that in mind, I give you the following op-ed by Howard Dean that was published yesterday in the Des Moines Register. In it Gov. Dean launches a direct attack on the duplicity of the Bush economic policy. He points out the simple truth that has been known for some time but few have been willing to publicly acknowledge: that the Republican economic plan is to bankrupt the federal government so that it can no longer provide the social services that progressives spent more than a century building:
Deliberately creating such an economic climate is not only irresponsible, it is immoral. The Congressional Budget Office recently announced the federal budget deficit has hit $400 billion. Federal revenues have hit the lowest level since the end of the Eisenhower administration. Unemployment has hit a nine-year high. Make no mistake: We are in the fight for the ideals that make our country strong. On the one side is a Democratic vision of a country in which we commit as a community to providing affordable health care to every American, public education to every child, a healthy environment to our families and Social Security and Medicare to our seniors. On the other is a Republican Party that seeks to privatize Social Security and education and to open our national parks to the highest bidder. The sooner the Democrats recognize this isn't a fight over tax cuts, but a battle for our country's heart, soul and future, the sooner the American people will join our cause. What America needs now is a Democratic Party with the backbone to stand up for the future of our country and against President Bush"s reckless economic policies. It is time for the Democratic Party to speak up and be clear in telling the American people this one incontrovertible fact: We will never achieve social justice in this country without fiscal responsibility. My central commitment upon taking office will be to repeal these tax cuts and to put our fiscal house in order. We must meet our fundamental obligations to teach our children, care for our parents and defend our nation. We will not meet these obligations if we bankrupt our country. My commitment to the values that make us proud to be Americans is absolute. If we fail to defeat this president and stop his radical agenda, we will surrender the central ideal proclaimed from one American generation to the next throughout our history: "We are one nation, and we are all in this together."
Howard Dean understands that this is a battle for the moral high ground. Furthermore, he knows how to make this THE fundamental issue of this election. As he said, this is not about any one particular policy issue. It is about a fundamental disagreement about human nature itself. Are we in this only for ourselves or are we in it for us all? Are we our brother's keeper?

Resolving a problem

I've been trying for some time now to try and figure out how I will campaign for John Kerry if he were to win the nomination given my severe disapointment with his vote for the Iraqi War authorization. I've come to the conclusion that, if this situation comes to pass, I will not attempt to justify or excuse Kerry's vote on this matter. I will urge people to vote for him. But if pressed on the matter I will say without hesitation that I think Kerry's vote was wrong, that it demonstrated a level of failed leadership on his part and that it is a black mark against his candidacy. But, DESPITE THAT, I still think he would be a better President than Bush. I will not lie or equivocate in order to obscure Kerry's failure on this matter. But I will still vote for him and support him and campaign for him. But then, I won't have to do that because Dean is going to win.

Bush attacked!

Secret Service agents quickly wrestled the assailant to the ground while rushing the President to a secure locale. The attacker's grandfather, Rep. Tom DeLay, was heard to wail, "Where did we go wrong!"

Rat-Fucks-R-Us

Kynn describes what appears to be an orchestrated attempt to get Dean and Clark supporters into a fight with each other. I don't know if this attempt to disrupt the Democratic race is amateur or a professional (read Republican/Bush campaign), but we should expect more of this as the campaign heats up and Dean and/or Clark start to make more waves. The Republican party are masters at the old rat-fuck (deliberate disruption of an opposition's campaign through infiltration) and we should be prepared for far worse than this. We should also take this as a positive sign. The opposition is worried that Dean and/or Clark might really be a threat to Bush. They wouldn't bother with this kind of stuff if they didn't think they had the potential to be dangerous. We have arrived!

MoveOn Primary update

MoveOn has put up the candidate web pages for their online Primary. These include letters from each of the candidates and their answers to the online questionnaire generated by MoveOn members. Click here for Howard Dean's page. I have read the Dean, Kerry and Gephardt pages so far. This may be personal bias but I think Dean's page blows away the competition. He hits Bush on all barrels. It is perhaps the best distillation of his political philosophy to date (I suspect it is also the outline for his upcoming announcement speech). By comparison, Kerry devotes his entire letter to discussing one topic: blocking right-wing Supreme Court nominations. Now, this is an important issue to me. But Kerry makes it sound like it is the ONLY issue of any importance to him. Come on! What about the WMD hunt? What about Bush's tax giveaways to the rich? Kerry talks about these some more in his answers to the questions, but even then it sounds mostly boilerplate. I'm disappointed with Kerry. I want to like the guy but he just seems so passionless. I really have to wonder why people think he is more electable than Dean.

Google News Democratic Poll for 6/18/2003

		This Week (6/18)			Last Week (6/11)
1	John Kerry	1920	15.6%	-0.6	1	2490	16.1%
1	John Edwards	1920	15.6%	+2.4	5	2030	13.2%
3	Bob Graham	1910	15.5%	+0.7	2	2280	14.8%
4	Joe Lieberman	1620	13.1%	-0.7	4	2130	13.8%
5	Howard Dean	1580	12.8%	-1.1	3	2140	13.9%
6	Dick Gephardt	1310	10.6%	-0.6	6	1740	11.3%
7	Dennis Kucinich	942	7.6%	-0.3	7	1220	7.9%
8	Al Sharpton	701	5.7%	+0.1	8	860	5.6%
9	Carol Moseley Braun	423	3.4%	-0.1	9	423	3.5%

Everybody's absolute numbers are down this week indicating decreased media attention on the campaign. John Edwards barrels from fifth to tie with Kerry for the lead with +2.4 increase in percentage of news reports. I have no idea why his numbers jumped so much. Did I miss something in the news? Howard Dean, by these numbers, had a bad week as he dropped to fifth place with a -1.1 drop in percentage of news reports. This is odd considering the increased coverage he has been getting in the TV news broadcasts. Maybe google news doesn't cover this as well? I wonder if they include transcripts in their system. (Methodology: All numbers are taken from the hit counts when searching on the Google News Service for news stories containing each candidate's name. Click on each name to rerun the search. You will likely get different results as the numbers are constantly changing. I make absolutely no claim that these numbers have any real meaning.)

Another Segway update

Actually, just a cartoon, from the brilliant pen of Tom Toles

"Dean has been a breath of fresh air ..." say professional media consultants

PR Week, an online column written by professional media consultants from a group called CARMA International, has an interesting analysis of media coverage of Howard Dean. Overall the verdict is very favorable. Now, while PR people are not exactly a group that is generally seen in a favorable light by the public, they are listened to by people in politics and the news media. The fact that they like what they see in the Dean campaign will get him some positive notice in other circles. The concluding assessment:
Dean has been a breath of fresh air for those looking for one - someone to speak his mind rather than toe the party line or say and do anything to get elected. While his campaign has been successful so far, it’s a long way to even the first primary, let alone the election.
(thanks to Alice for referring this item to me).

Dean finally speaks on WMD

I've been waiting for Dean to issue some statement on the growing WMD scandal. Up till now Bob Graham has owned this issue even though I think it is a perfect one for Dean to take on what with his strong stand against the war from the very beginning. I understand that he has been waiting for the right opportunity to do so because he didn't want to be seen as just pushing the issue for partisan gain (of course he will be accused of that way anyway by the usual suspects but who cares what they think?) He also wanted to wait for more facts to come in before making any statement on such a volatile issue. Bush's comments from yesterday about "revisionist historians" gave Dean the opening he was waiting for:
Dean: Investigate Bush's Statements on Iraq "Yesterday, President Bush asserted that those who question the evidence he used to justify the pre-emptive war in Iraq are ‘revisionist historians.’ Yet it is President Bush who is rewriting history. “To justify the preemptive invasion of Iraq, the President claimed that the United States faced an imminent threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraqi regime had direct ties to Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, no reliable evidence has materialized to prove Iraqi support of Al Qaeda, and weapons of mass destruction have not been found. “The American people shouldn't have to wait for the history books to be written to discover the truth. Did the President receive bad intelligence, or did his administration deliberately mislead Congress, the United Nations and the American people? “An independent investigation must be held to determine what the President knew, and when he knew it. The American people deserve the truth.”

Who cares if Bush lied?

Sgt. Atanacio Haromarin died because Bush lied. Spc. Kyle Griffin died because Bush lied. Spc. Nathaniel A. Caldwell died because Bush lied. Lt. Col. Dominic R. Baragona died because Bush lied. Capt. Andrew David La Mont died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Jason William Moore died because Bush lied. 1st Lt. Timothy Louis Ryan died because Bush lied. Infantry Sgt. Kirk Straseskie died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Aaron Dean White died because Bush lied. Cpl. Douglas Jose Marencoreyes died because Bush lied. Spc. Rasheed Sahib died because Bush lied. Master Sgt. William Lee Payne died because Bush lied. Spc. David T. Nutt died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Nicholas Brian Kleibocker died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Patrick L. Griffin died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Jakub H. Kowalik died because Bush lied. Pfc. Jose Franci Gonzalez Rodriguez died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Smith died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Cedric E. Bruns died because Bush lied. Cpl. Richard P. Carl died because Bush lied. Chief Warrant Officer died because Bush lied. Chief Warrant Officer Hans N. Gukeisen died because Bush lied. Brian K. Van Dusen died because Bush lied. Pfc. Marlin T. Rockhold died because Bush lied. Sgt. Sean C. Reynolds died because Bush lied. Pfc. Jesse A. Givens died because Bush lied. 1st Sgt. Joe J. Garza died because Bush lied. 1st Lt. Osbaldo Orozco died because Bush lied. Spc. Narson B. Sullivan died because Bush lied. Sgt. Troy D. Jenkins died because Bush lied. Chief Warrant Officer Andrew T. Arnold died because Bush lied. Spc. Roy R. Buckley died because Bush lied. Chief Warrant Officer Robert W. Channell Jr. died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Alan D. Lam died because Bush lied. Cpl. John T. Rivero died because Bush lied. Pvt. Johnny Brown died because Bush lied. Spc. Thomas Arthur Foley III died because Bush lied. Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez died because Bush lied. Spc. Richard A. Goward died because Bush lied. Pfc. Joseph P. Mayek died because Bush lied. Cpl. Jason David Mileo died because Bush lied. Spc. Gil Mercado died because Bush lied. Cpl. Jesus A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. David Edward Owens Jr. died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Riayan A. Tejeda died because Bush lied. Gunnery Sgt. Jeff Bohr died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Terry W. Hemingway died because Bush lied. Cpl. Henry L. Brown died because Bush lied. Pfc. Juan Guadalupe Garza Jr. died because Bush lied. Sgt. 1st Class John W. Marshall died because Bush lied. Pfc. Jason M. Meyer died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Scott D. Sather died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Robert A. Stever died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Andrew Julian Aviles died because Bush lied. Capt. Eric B. Das died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid died because Bush lied. 2nd Lt. Jeffrey J. Kaylor died because Bush lied. Cpl. Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin died because Bush lied. Pfc. Anthony S. Miller died because Bush lied. Spc. George A. Mitchell died because Bush lied. Major William R. Watkins III died because Bush lied. Pfc. Gregory P. Huxley Jr. died because Bush lied. Pvt. Kelley S. Prewitt died because Bush lied. Sgt. Stevon Booker died because Bush lied. Spc. Larry K. Brown died because Bush lied. 1st Sgt. Edward Smith died because Bush lied. Capt. Tristan N. Aitken died because Bush lied. Pfc. Wilfred D. Bellard died because Bush lied. Spc. Daniel Francis J. Cunningham died because Bush lied. Capt. Travis Ford died because Bush lied. Cp. Bernard G. Gooden died because Bush lied. Pvt. Devon D. Jones died because Bush lied. 1st Lt. Brian M. McPhillips died because Bush lied. Sgt. Duane R. Rios died because Bush lied. Capt. Benjamin Sammis died because Bush lied. Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith died because Bush lied. Pfc. Chad Bales Metcalf died because Bush lied. Sgt. Wilbert Davis died because Bush lied. Cpl. Mark A. Evnin died because Bush lied. Capt. Edward J. Korn died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Nino D. Livaudais died because Bush lied. Spc. Ryan P. Long died because Bush lied. Spc. Donald S. Oaks Jr. died because Bush lied. Sgt. 1st Class Randall S. Rehn died because Bush lied. Capt. Russell B. Rippetoe died because Bush lied. Sgt. Todd J. Robbins died because Bush lied. Cpl. Erik H. Silva died because Bush lied. Capt. James F. Adamouski died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Brian E. Anderson died because Bush lied. Spc. Mathew Boule died because Bush lied. Master Sgt. George A. Fernandez died because Bush lied. Pfc. Christian D. Gurtner died because Bush lied. Chief Warrant Officer Erik A. Halvorsen died because Bush lied. Chief Warrant Officer Scott Jamar died because Bush lied. Sgt. Michael Pedersen died because Bush lied. Chief Warrant Officer Eric A. Smith died because Bush lied. Lt. Nathan D. White died because Bush lied. Sgt. Jacob L. Butler died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Joseph B. Maglione died because Bush lied. Spc. William A. Jeffries died because Bush lied. Spc. Brandon Rowe died because Bush lied. Capt. Aaron J. Contreras died because Bush lied. Sgt. Michael V. Lalush died because Bush lied. Sgt. Brian McGinnis died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. James Cawley died because Bush lied. Cpl. Michael Curtin died because Bush lied. Pfc. Diego Fernando Rincon died because Bush lied. Pfc. Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. William W. White died because Bush lied. Sgt. Eugene Williams died because Bush lied. Sgt. Fernando Padilla-Ramirez died because Bush lied. Sgt. Roderic A. Solomon died because Bush lied. Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Menusa died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Jesus A. Suarez Del Solar died because Bush lied. Maj. Kevin G. Nave died because Bush lied. Pfc. Francisco A. Martinez Flores died because Bush lied. Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Michael Vann Johnson Jr. died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Donald C. May Jr. died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Patrick T. O'Day died because Bush lied. Cpl. Robert M. Rodriguez died because Bush lied. Maj. Gregory Stone died because Bush lied. Cpl. Evan James died because Bush lied. Sgt. Bradley S. Korthaus died because Bush lied. Spc. Gregory P. Sanders died because Bush lied. Spc. Jamaal R. Addison died because Bush lied. Sgt. Edward J.ÝAnguiano died because Bush lied. Sgt. Michael E. Bitz died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Brian Rory Buesing died because Bush lied. Sgt. George Edward Buggs died because Bush lied. Pfc. Tamario D. Burkett died because Bush lied. Cpl. Kemaphoom A. Chanawongse died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Donald John Cline died because Bush lied. Master Sgt. Robert J. Dowdy died because Bush lied. Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. David K. Fribley died because Bush lied. Cpl. Jose A. Garibay died because Bush lied. Pvt. Jonathan L. Gifford died because Bush lied. Cpl. Jorge A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied. Pvt. Nolen R. Hutchings died because Bush lied. Pfc. Howard Johnson II died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Jordan died because Bush lied. Spc. James Kiehl died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Patrick R. Nixon died because Bush lied. Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata died because Bush lied. Pfc. Lori Piestewa died because Bush lied. 2nd Lt. Frederick E. Pokorney Jr. died because Bush lied. Sgt. Brendon Reiss died because Bush lied. Cpl. Randal Kent Rosacker died because Bush lied. Pvt. Brandon Sloan died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Slocum died because Bush lied. Sgt. Donald Walters died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Michael J. Williams died because Bush lied. Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski died because Bush lied. Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert died because Bush lied. Spc. Brandon S. Tobler died because Bush lied. Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin died because Bush lied. Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre died because Bush lied. 2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez died because Bush lied. Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy died because Bush lied. Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey died because Bush lied. Lance Cpl. Thomas A. Blair died because Bush lied. Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson died because Bush lied. (Stolen from poster MillenniumForce over on the BartCop forum)

One Dollar = One Vote

Ari Fleischer gets asked a question about Howard Dean:
Q Secondly, on fundraising. Governor Dean has said that it's a threat to democracy for any one presidential candidate to have two or three times more money to get his or her message out than any other candidate. Regardless of how much money the President plans to raise, does he see any merit whatsoever in that argument? MR. FLEISCHER: Well again, I think the amount of money that candidates raise in our democracy is a reflection of the amount of support they have around the country. So the President is proud to have the support of the American people, and the American people will ultimately be the ones who decide how much funding goes to any Democrat or any Republican. Q How can that really be reflective of his support, though, considering he's getting money from people who can afford to go to dinner for $2,000? I mean, most Americans cannot afford that. So how can that really be reflective of his support from middle America? MR. FLEISCHER: The rules are equal. The rules are the same for both parties, for the Democrats and the Republicans. Both parties compete knowing that. They, of course, raise money from all groups of Americans, including many low-dollar donors. And, again, the American people decide how much support to give either candidate in either party. Q It's also known, Ari, that the labor union members overwhelmingly support Democrats, or have in previous elections. So how can that really, you know -- that doesn't really support your argument. MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure of your point, Heidi. Q I mean, Gore was endorsed by most of the labor -- you know, major labor unions. MR. FLEISCHER: Right. So the American people have spoken because one segment of our society has spoken? I stand by what I've said about the American people, broadly.
Bush makes shit loads of money from a small number of donors while Democrats get smaller overall money donations from a larger cross-section of the populous. But by Republican terms of the debate, Bush's win in the money primary means he has more support from Americans. Well, at least the American's who count. BTW, there was another question about Dean, but it sounds like a plant:
Q Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who won the Wisconsin state Democratic convention poll decisively, over Senator Kerry and the others, has said, regarding the location of Saddam's WMDs, "How much did the President know, and when did he know it?" And my question is, in view of the statements last year in which Senators Kerry, Liebermann, and Graham, as well as Congressman Gephardt, all affirmed that Saddam had WMDs, doesn't the President believe this Dean smear is more directed at Dean's rival Democrats than at the President? MR. FLEISCHER: I think -- the fact of the matter is there is a terrible split in the Democratic Party and among its presidential candidates about whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Q So he's going after the Democrats rather than the President, isn't he? MR. FLEISCHER: Many who have the most experience have said that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, indeed. Thank you.
Got that? Dean's direct criticism of Bush over the question of WMD is turned into an attack by Dean upon the rest of the Democrats who supported Bush's initiative. Are these guys sneaky or what?

Ch-ch-changes

There's something quite extraordinary going on with the Dean campaign, even above and beyond their attempt to form a large and lasting netroots campaign that will help sweep the Governor into the Whitehouse. Joe Trippi, the campaign manager for Howard Dean, the guy who is 2nd only to Dean in responsibility when it comes to winning this election, has devoted an extraordinary amount of his time to direct conversations with Dean supporters. He regularly posts in the comments section of several prominent blogs (the unofficial blog, Atrios, DailyKOS, etc.). He has even posted a comment on this blog and sent me a personal email. In these posts he tries to explain, when realistically possible, what the campaign's strategy is and why they do the things they do. For instance, Joe just today posted an appeal on several mailing lists and blogs, urging Dean supporters to go all out in their efforts to win this month for Howard Dean. There is a long comment thread associated with this announcement on the unofficial blog. Joe has been following that thread very closely and responding to the concerns that various posters have had about us not appearing to browbeat the MoveOn people into endorsing Dean. The thing that is extraordinary about this is that very few campaign managers would even consider engaging supporters to this degree. Many of them would consider that the job of some lower-level lackeys. It's certainly not something so important as to demand the precious time of the campaign manager. Not Joe Trippi. If any of my readers are Babylon 5 fans then maybe you can appreciate the similarities between this campaign and the development of that show. Joe Straczynski, the creator of Babylon 5, devoted a considerable amount of his time to documenting, online and in real-time, the internal workings of a major television series. No producer before (or since so far as I know) has ever done anything like that. But Straczynki's devotion to his show's fan base was such that he wanted them to understand why certain things happened on the show. The result was a level of fan support that no show since Star Trek had ever produced. It felt good to be part of that process. I get the same feeling from Joe Trippi (hmmm, two guys named Joe, coincidence?) He isn't just doing this to send marching orders to the troops. He could do that with simple press releases. No, I believe that Joe believes that by engaging the base on a personal level like this, with a minimal level of bullshit, he can create an even more devoted base. This appreciation of the feelings of the base is a characteristic he shares in common with Howard Dean and it's just another reason why I am proud to support this campaign. I don't know if future campaign managers will engage the base to the degree that Joe is now. I don't even know that, as the campaign ramps up, Joe will be able to maintain this level of contact. But if Dean is successful, the impact on the nature of political campaigning in this country will be radical. And that, as Martha Stewart would say, is a good thing.