Hmmm...

Arnold is elected governor of California.

The Dean campaign introduces an "End Violence Against Women" petition.

Coincidence?

NPD and Mr O'Reilly

I have the best readers (truly flattery never hurts). Monkeypox, commenting on my earlier O'Reilly post, attempts to diagnose the Bill-meisters problem:

For a little insight into what might be eating Bill O'Reilly, let's turn to the American Psychiatric Association:

WHAT IS NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder)?

An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:

1. Feels grandiosity and self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance.
3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared.
5. Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations.
6. Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends.
7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others.
8. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her.
9. Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted.

The language in the criteria above is based on or summarized from:

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition (DSM IV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Sam Vaknin. (1999). Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited, first edition. Prague and Skopje: Narcissus Publication. ("Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" http://www.geocities.com/vaksam/faq1.html )

Thanks MP! Sounds about right. In fact, I can think of a few other prominent people who might fit this mold.

The Players

Sterling Newberry has a long post up on the Clark Sphere with some useful background details on the players involved in the current disputes within the Clark campaign. He also gives a small glimmer of what has been going on behind the scenes that has gotten some people so upset. Keep in mind while reading this that Newberry appears to be strongly partisan towards Donnie Fowler so that might taint his information.

Thanks

Arnold acknowledges some of the help he got in his election:

He also thanked the news media for their role in his quest for the statehouse.

"Please do me a favor: Stay with me the next three years, OK? Because you are absolutely essential for me to get my message out there," he said. "I really appreciate your being part of my campaign."

Arnold then went on to announce that he would solve California's future energy problems by tapping the energy produced by the spinning of Edward R. Murrow's body.

(Tip-o-the-hat to Atrios)

More on Clark (sorry, it's one of those kind of days)

Kos says that Clark is skipping Iowa and New Hampshire and will be focusing on the Feb.2 primaries (SC, OK and AZ). Is this true?

If so, I think it is really stupid.

Clark has got a good buzz going and if he were to run an intense three month ground campaign in those states I think he could seriously threaten Dean. If he were to beat Dean in either state than it would seriously cripple Dean out of the gate. Clark could then use that momentum to move to the national level because the calendar after the kickoff is heavily weighted in the South (Clark's supposed stronghold). But he won't get anywhere in those states if he doesn't put in the foot time (Iowans and New Hampsherites take a certain pride in the kind of hoops they get their suitors to jump through.)

In order for this strategy to work Clark will have to have a strong national campaign running by the time the Iowa and New Hampshire races are completed. He has the potential to do so, but he doesn't have the luxury of a lot of time to do it (Dean's been building his national team for over a year).

I'm seriously concerned that Clark might be a great candidate who is getting a lot of really bad advice.

I'm late, I'm late

Jerry Bowles brings up an interesting point regarding the recent stories about problems in the Clark campaign: they may be more a manifestation of Clark's late entry into the race than any inherent problem with the campaign itself.

It is always risky to open a show on Broadway without first trying it out in Chicago or Philadelphia or at least spending a few weeks in "previews" before the official opening. That gives a show’s producers some time to work out the kinks in the big numbers, cut the scenes that don’t work, and quietly change the actors who aren’t jelling with the rest of the cast--before the critics show up.

Wesley Clark is paying a heavy price for coming in the presidential campaign as an expensive and high profile production just as the Presidential race is entering its Broadway phase. The other Democratic candidates have been working on their messages and themes before live audiences and quietly sorting out their personnel problems for months now. Their startup problems were probably as rough as Clark’s but they came at a time when nobody was paying much attention. Everything the General does is under the spotlight.

I can't give exact figures on this, but I believe every one of the major candidates has gone through at least one campaign shakeup since they first started campaigning. As I understand it, Joe Trippi was not Dean's first campaign manager (correct me on this if I am wrong). But, as Jerry points out, no one was paying attention when those shakeups occurred.

Before Clark entered there was a lot of talk about whether he had waited to long to get into the race. Many Clark supporters pooh-poohed the idea, pointing out that Clinton entered the 1992 race at about the same time and that there was still four months to build substantial electoral support. Both of these points are right, but they miss something essential: the 2004 race started much earlier than the 1992 race. Specifically, the media's attention on the race is earlier than it has ever been.

Were there even debates between the Democrats at this point during the 1992 race? The 2004 candidates have already had a handful of debates stretching back into last spring.

There used to be a time when we took a breather from politics. But we live in an age when the next campaign begins the day after the previous election. The 2004 campaign began the day after the 2002 election.

Clark may turn out to be the best candidate with the worst of timing.

Please Mr. Republican, tell us who we should run!

Ezra Klein comments on the latest attempt by right-wingers ("A Not-So-Unstoppable Frontrunner") to select their opponent:

So to summarize, Democrats shouldn't be to gung-ho on Dean, because he isn't really as great as we think he is. And Clark, well, we should stay the hell away from that loser, plus, we don't need him because Dean is really quite electable. In fact, we should stick to the known candidates, Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman (notice Edwards isn't mentioned), the ones who've been dusted by Clark and Dean.

Now, if right wing pundits are begging for a return to the candidates we passed up and telling us that, for our own good, we should abandon those candidates with momentum and hype, what does that say about the state of the Right? About who they're afraid of? And how powerful of an argument is that to nominate the Doctor, the General, or some combination thereof?

It's all so confusing!

Google News Democratic Primary Poll for 10/9/2003

		This Week (10/9)			Last Week (10/3)
1	Howard Dean	7080	20.1%	+1.6	1	7420	18.6%
2	Wesley Clark	6880	19.6%	+4.4	2	6070	15.2%
3	John Kerry	5050	14.4%	+0.8	3	5420	13.6%
4	John Edwards	4240	12.1%	+1.0	4	4410	11.0%
5	Joe Lieberman	3570	10.1%	+1.4	6	3510	8.8%
6	Dick Gephardt	3070	8.7%	-0.6	5	3730	9.3%
7	Al Sharpton	2080	5.9%	+0.1	8	2330	5.8%
8	Dennis Kucinich	2050	5.8%	+0.3	9	2220	5.6%
9	Carol Moseley Braun	1160	3.3%	-0.2	10	1410	3.5%

I'm posting the poll one day early as I may not have access to a computer tomorrow.

Graham dropped out of the race so he is dropped from the poll. This means that everyone's media share receives an artificial bump due to the vacuum Graham left behind.

Dean manages to hold of the first assault from Clark, but just barely. Dean and Clark are now the two most quote-worthy candidates in the race, which means that every story that has a political bent to it is likely to have some mention of both of them in it. It used to be Dean and Kerry that fought for media attention, but Kerry has almost dropped down into the Gephardt/Edwards/Lieberman tier. For the foreseeable future, as the media sees it, Dean and Clark are the story of the 2004 election.

The following is a chart of the Google News Media Share over the last few months.

(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 get different results as the numbers are constantly changing. I make absolutely no claim that these numbers have any real meaning.)

O'Reilly: raving nut or slick huckster?

No doubt some of you have already heard about Bill O'Reilly's hissy fit on yesterday's Fresh Air (you can listen to it here). The short version is that, at the tail end of the approximately 45 minute interview, O'Reilly abruptly started ranting at host Terry Gross about the interview being nothing but a setup designed to subject him to a multitude of smears by his critics. O'Reilly conspiratorially winked that "we both know what is really going on here". After mouthing off for approximately two minutes, O'Reilly said, "this interview is over" and left the studio, leaving Gross somewhat speechless.

Some are speculating that this demonstrates how unhinged O'Reilly is. I think not. In fact, I think it was O'Reilly who was setting up Gross. Consider the fact that O'Reilly's abrupt "meltdown" occurred right at the place where the interview would be wrapping up anyway. Up until then O'Reilly had been fairly engaging with Gross. There had been some tough back in forth early in the interview about his fight with Al Franken, but the major portion of the middle of the interview dealt almost exclusively with his new book. In other words, O'Reilly was lying when he said that the interview was just an excuse to subject him to criticism. He got plenty of airtime to talk about his work.

Here's what I think happened: O'Reilly knows that his core audience loves the kind of red meat he offers them when he goes after public radio. So what does he do? He goes on Fresh Air to promote his book. But, as the interview is winding down and he has already gotten all the exposure to the NPR audience that he wants to get, he goes into a full bore rant which he can then cut and paste and play back later on the air (which, by the way, he apparently has done on both his TV and radio show) in order to demonstrate how unfair NPR is and how the great Bill O'Reilly continues to stand up "for the little guy" against the big bad liberal media. It's a win-win situation for Mr O'Reilly.

Take it from me folks, Bill O'Reilly knew exactly what he was doing on that program.

Update: There are several letters about this show over at the Poynter Forum (dated link). At least one of the writers is thinking the same thing I'm thinking:

O'Reilly's good timing

10/8/2003 6:03:00 PM Posted By: Jim Romenesko From STEWART MASON: Subject: O'Reilly on "Fresh Air." Nice little PR move by Bill O'Reilly, isn't it? I notice that he "walked out" and "ended the interview" at 49 minutes after the hour...which is exactly when interviews on Fresh Air always end. Interesting.

Cursor (dated link) also has several pointers for this story. It looks like O'Reilly is promoting the incident like crazy, once again backing up my theory that his "rant" was calculated.

Bravery

I offer the following story as a form of encouragement.

Howard Dean supporter demonstrates on Oxford Square

Ben Beitzel
DM City News Editor
October 09, 2003

As shouts of support and hate rain down, a woman, who has been called everything from a communist to a socialist to a terrorist to a patriot, stands and waves with signs reading "Fire Bush" and "Dean for President."

Kelly Jacobs, from Hernando, has been traveling around the Mid-South for eight weeks standing in one spot for a week protesting Bush and supporting Dean.

"The first day is usually the quietest because people are just shocked to see me standing here," Jacobs said.

"By the last day, people have figured out they can honk and wave, and people are usually the ugliest on the last day."

Jacobs, during her protests, has had cars try to run her over, people throw her rude gestures and had attempts at stealing her signs.

She also had the police called on her and who then forced her to pay money for permits that were never issued.

"I want to successfully work to reach out to undecided voters who are unhappy with 'King George," Jacobs said.

[...]

Doing the smart thing

Now this is a little more sensible:

Clark Will Return Payments From Speeches

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark's campaign said Wednesday night that he will return payments he has received for speeches since declaring his candidacy and will no longer speak for money.

Clark spokesman Mark Fabiani issued a statement that said Clark's advisers reviewed federal guidelines and determined that his paid speeches were appropriate. "Nevertheless, to avoid any distraction from the real issues that matter to Americans, General Clark has decided to return the payments from these speeches," the statement said.

This is a pretty typical "I done fucked up but I won't admit it" type comment. Oh well. At least they were smart enough to recognize that it would have been foolish to hold on to the money. I just wish they had been smart enough to realize how questionable it was from the beginning.

Intent

Jerry Bowles made a post comparing the Schwarzenegger and Clark campaigns and warns against Clark "assembling a large team of business-as-usual Gore-Clinton retreads to run his campaign" because doing so could turn off a lot of the grassroots that are pissed off at those insiders. He says that Clark should learn from Arnold that it is "better to be perceived as an 'outsider' ... than as just another political hack."

I agree, but I pointed out in the comments section that Arnold had a lot of help from GOP insiders (Pete Wilson, et al.) so it is possible to run both an insider and an outsider campaign. Morat, another commenter, brought up a useful point:

Arnold had the appearance of "I'm running because I want to, and because I'm Arnold, lots of well qualified GOP usuals were willing to come work for ME." The truth of that doesn't matter. It's all appearance.

I think this gets to the heart of the Clark question. Some people are suspicious of the General because they feel he is just a tool of DNC/DLC insiders who are using him as a front to try and short-circuit the Dean campaign. Whether this is a justified suspicion or not is unimportant. What matter's is that it is a suspicion that a lot of people have (including myself) and that Clark must address it if he is to win over the same forces that Dean is mustering.

Clark needs to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that this is his campaign and that he is running because he wants to be president.

Ironically, this is in contradiction to the message of the Dean campaign, which is that Dean is running for us ("You Have The Power!"). Dean has the advantage over Clark in that he established his campaign's theme over a long period of time. Clark has had no time to do so (though it could be argued that he should have been working on those themes over the last year while he was toying with the idea of running).

This really gets down to what I have always considered the essential question in any campaign: why does the candidate want the job they are running for. A candidate who can convincingly sell his or her reason for running will go a long way towards actually achieving that goal. Dean's message on this point is very clear and well understood. Clark's is still muddled. He needs to be careful not to fall into the trap that hurt Dole and Gore: running because it was "their turn" and because it is what was expected of them. That won't sell.

No piling on

I composed a post about the Open Letter posted over on DraftClark.com by a Clark supporter who apparently is concerned that the campaign is about to implode. But I decided to delete it because it came awfully close to violating the letter and spirit of The Pledge.

Instead, I would like to urge people on all sides of this to take a deep breath and not over-react to any news you hear or to anything that anyone says. I have my problems with the Clark campaign, but I have no desire to use this recent blowup as an excuse to push my own guy at Clark's expense. We must remember that, as explosive as the language is in the Open Letter, it is still just the opinion of one individual. The same is true of the comments others have made in response to that letter and to a post Kos has made about it. Indeed, all we have is our own opinion. What is the truth will probably never be known.

As I said previously, this kind of crap is bad for the Clark campaign regardless of how "real" it is. Accusations and counter-accusations fly, bad feelings are created and political opponents sit back and laugh with glee (and yes, unfortunately, some of those laughing are fellow Democrats). Let's just hope that Clark can step in and stop it before it really gets out of control.

By the way, I'm thinking of attending my first Clark meetup next week. Being a veteran of Dean meetups (and a host for several months), I'm curious to see how those meetings will be run. I'll try and report back my impressions.

The lies continue

Billmon points us to yet another example of shameless lies from the Bush administration. It doesn't matter that David Kay hasn't found any evidence of WMD in Iraq. They will just say that it proves that their case against Saddam was justified regardless of whether it is because they know they can get away with it.

No one holds these assholes to account for their lies. Certainly not the establishment press.

Eyes on the prize people!

I agree with Kevin. The idea of recalling Schwarzenegger, while emotionally satisfying, is just stupid. Not only is it likely to fail but Democrats will just look petty for doing it and it will just distract us from the ultimate goal of removing Bush in 2004.

Clark's first leadership test

Josh comments on the matter of Fowler's resignation from the Clark campaign.

First of all, it sounds like it was a resignation after an unwanted demotion, which is about as close to a firing as you can get without actually getting a pink slip. Second, it might be simplistic to pin this on a simple "internet-savvy-outsiders" vs. "Washington-based-control-freaks" fight. I tend to agree. What we on the outside see is only a glimmer of what is going on on the inside. And it is important to remember that what we hear is based on the words of people who may have a desire to spin the problems in order to make themselves look better (Fowler could just be a f*ckup and deserved to be demoted).

But, there is a deeper problem here. Regardless of what the dispute is about, it is clear that there are problems in the Clark campaign and that those problems will eventually impact negatively on the candidate. If team members can't work with each other to get their guy elected then they will sabotage his chances from within.

Josh expresses surprise that Clark is doing as well as he is despite these problems. I'm not surprised at all because most of this stuff is inside politics crap which only political junkies pay attention to. The general public just sees a dynamic General running as a Democrat and that gets their attention. These kind of inside fights won't really impact Clark's candidacy until it comes time to address more visible issues. For example, the previous item about Clark's paid speeches: how will the campaign address the allegations of impropriety? A divided campaign operation could spend to much time fighting amongst themselves about how to deal with the problem. The result will be a mixed message that will only exacerbate the problem.

I agree with Josh's prescription: Clark has to assert himself over his whole campaign. He has to stop this kind of wrangling before it grows out of control.

Call it his first test of leadership.

The ambivalence of Wesley Clark

Could this be potential trouble for the general?

Clark May Have Broken Law in Paid Speeches
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 8, 2003; Page A06

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark may have violated federal election laws by discussing his presidential campaign during recent paid appearances, according to campaign finance experts.

Clark, a newcomer to presidential politics, touted his candidacy during paid appearances at DePauw University in Indiana and other campuses after he entered the presidential race on Sept. 17. Under the laws governing the financing of presidential campaigns, candidates cannot be paid by corporations, labor unions, individuals or even universities for campaign-related events. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) considers such paid political appearances akin to a financial contribution to a candidate.

Clark is getting paid as much as $30,000 for speeches, according to people familiar with his arrangement. He has two more scheduled for next week.

Now, this issue may just be a tempest in a teapot, but I think it demonstrates some of Clark's political naiveté. I can remember when Clark announced and there was some confusion about whether he would attend the next debate because it conflicted with a previously scheduled paid speech. I can remember thinking at the time that it seemed odd for a presidential candidate to accept money for speeches. 

William Oldaker, Clark's general counsel, said the retired general did not run afoul of FEC laws because Clark "is not attempting through those speeches to specifically . . . influence his election."

Oldaker said Clark only "incidentally" mentioned his candidacy in the speeches, and, therefore, the purpose of his appearances had nothing to do with his presidential campaign.

This is the kind of technical parsing that got Gore into trouble in 2000. Clark, by cutting it so close to the wire, is risking serious political damage if his opponents decide to use this against him. Frankly, it's just stupid and it demonstrates a lack of serious consideration on Clark's part that he did not immediately cancel all of his planned paid appearances. The fact that he wanted to continue to make these speeches, regardless of their legality, suggests that he is not 100% in this campaign. And believe me, as harsh as I may sound in my assessment of this, it will be nothing compared to what the Republicans will make of it.

Clark needs to demonstrate that he is really serious about running for the presidency. His long "will-he-or-won't-he" lead-up to his announcement. His last-minute embrace of the Democratic party. His initial waffling on whether he would appear in the Democratic debate. All of these are signs of a candidate who wants the job but may not fully appreciate the commitment that getting the job will require.

I hope I am wrong about this.

Be careful what you wish for

Digby has an interesting post this morning warning Democrats not to over-react to the Schwarzenegger victory by thinking that they simply need to pull left in order to win. Digby argues that the Democrats problem is more about tactics and strategy than ideology. I agree to a certain extent. This is not to say that ideology cannot be important, but the success of the Republicans in recent years is not strictly based on ideology (polls repeatedly show that the party is to the right of the electorate on nearly every issue). What ideology does give the Republicans is a core belief system to rally around. Something that Democrats have been lacking for several years.

 The comments provide additional enlightenment, including the following from someone named space:

The Democrats' problem is one of tactics and strategy.

I disagree. I think the problem has been almost entirely of tactics.

In my mind, the fundamental usefulness of the DLC 10-15 years ago was their willingness to challenge the sacred cows of the Democratic part. They were willing to adopt Republican positions, not because they were popular, but because they believed they would work. The DLC endorsed NAFTA, welfare reform, and more support of law enforcement because they believed that they were superior policy stances and that the Democratic party would be rewarded in the long run. That was strategy and it was a winning strategy.

Subsequently, the DLC dispensed with strategy in favor of tactics. They supported Republican positions, including INSANE supply-side tax cuts, not because they believed in the inherent superiority of those ideas, but out of political expediency. They engaged in short-term pro-business (but long-term anti-growth) deregulation. That was tactics and bad tactics.

Furthermore, they equated moderate ideology with moderate behavior. Despite the rise of a militantly extremist conservatism, the DLC refused to play hardball, claiming that such behavior was for the great unwashed of the liberal wing. The result was that they got steamrollered and we now face the threat that Digby describes.

Unfortunately, extermism breeds extremism. The danger that Digby mentions - that Democrats will assume they need to be more liberal - is a real and natural one. Communism was a direct reponse to the unregulated capitalism that the GOP is now promoting.

The solution is to forcefully assert strategic centrism. We need more "militant moderates" like Digby.

I think this is spot on. The DLC started out with an admirable goal: to defeat several negative stereotypes that had built up around the Democratic party (that they were anti-business. That they were soft on crime. That they favored immorality over principle. etc.) The problem is, as space puts it, they got lost in the tactical forest and began to think only in terms of how to position themselves in relation to the Republicans instead of finding solid Democratic principles on which to run.

The battles to come will not be won exclusively by the left. It's the "militant moderates" that will make the difference. People who don't necessarily derive their political passion from ideology so much as from a desire to restore a sense of balance to the political process. Our system is out of whack, not because the Republicans are dominant (in a functioning democracy their will always be time when one party is ascendant) but because of what they are doing with that dominance: shoving through an ideological agenda that is at odds with the public image they present ("compassionate conservatism") while poisoning the political atmosphere with divisive tactics designed primarily to keep in power those already in power (power for power's sake).

The primary thing that attracts me to the Dean campaign is not so much the man himself but the idea he represents that it really is us who get to decide our future. The Republicans and the Democrats are both dominated by leaders who are more interested in holding on to power than they are in what they can ultimately do with that power to benefit the people.

In a way, the Schwarzenegger victory is a positive sign towards the future. The man at the center of it might be flawed, but the desire expressed by the electorate, the desire to "kick butt" against politicians who seem more interested in their own futures than in ours, is an admirable one. The Republicans may think that Schwarzenegger's victory is a positive sign for them, but they better hope that the same anger that the voters felt toward Gray Davis does not turn on their fair-haired boys and girls.

Bad signs from the Clark campaign

Others are already commenting on the story of Clark's campaign manager quitting (Kos, Kevin Drum, Matt Singer, Atrios).

As bad as this story is as a sign of the troubles the Clark campaign is having integrating the Draft Clark people (from the above story it sounds more like they are being bought off rather than actually being brought in) there's a more troubling aspect of this story: normally when someone leaves a political team they try to soften the blow of this story by giving it some convenient cover (the old "leaving to spend more time with his family" canard). Everyone knows its bullshit but it at least leaves the impression that the campaign will not be hurt badly by the move.

In this story, it sounds like Fowler just up and walked out, leaving the Clark campaign no time to put together a comment for the media. This is an indication of truly bad feelings on the part of the parties involved combined with a flat-footed media operation. This is not surprising considering how quickly this campaign came together. But it is something that will have to be cleaned up if the Clark team is to take on the Rove team next fall.

As it stands, Rove (assuming he's still around) will eat these guys like they were a light appetizer.

Milestone reached

Sometime in the last 24 hours I got my 100,000 visitor. I just barely managed to make it in less than one years of blogging. Thanks to everyone!