Friday, 2 April 2004 - 1:26 PM EST

I'm not 100% sure about this, but after reading this link and checking the press room sections of both the Democrats home page and the John Kerry page, I didn't see any mention of this press release. Either the Dems, or Brit may have been having a little fun with us on April 1st.

But I do have my questions as to why Bush chose St. Louis. Is Missouri in play? St. Louis is actually right on the border of Illinois, but that state is certainly not in play for Bush. I know it seems unfair to assign political motive to even this decision, but the sense I get from this White House is that everything they do is carefully examined in order to mine the most political gain from each and every event -- from having Bush land a jet to where Bush throws out the first pitch. Trust me, Karl Rove: Diabolical Genius never rests.

Friday, 2 April 2004 - 3:04 PM EST

Bush won Missouri 51-47 in 2000, but it isn't a solid Republican state. Missouri went for Clinton twice, and has gone for the winner every year since 1960.

So the Cardinals (or Royals) aren't a bad political choice politically, but you also have opening days in Pennsylvania and Ohio that day. Maybe St. Louis just fit into the travel plans better.

Or... maybe this is part of the campaign for Missouri's 3rd District Congressional seat. Dick Gephardt is retiring, and Russ Carnahan was the early favorite in the Democratic primary to succeed him, but has faltered in a crowded primary. I don't know how serious the main Republican challenger, Bill Federer is - his big endorement so far is from "Ambassador" Alan Keyes - but even Gephardt could only get into the high 50's in this district, so it's not out of the question.

Bush could also be in Missouri to support the re-election efforts of Senator Kit Bond, as he has previously. Bond hasn't broken 53% in either of his Senate runs, but his opponent is several million dollars and 17 points behind him.

Aren't you glad I'm not working today?