President Palpatine?
George Will on Lieberman's "Me or Dean" strategy.

Like Will says, if Dean takes Iowa and NH, then Gephardt and Kerry are done. But will Edwards give up, too? I think if those two guys are out, then Edwards will sell himself as the compromise candidate between Dean and Lieberman.

My guess is that Edwards stays at least until South Carolina, where he and Lieberman would split the anti-Dean vote. Will there be any stopping Dean after winning 3 primaries?

Marc Zogby

Well, do you, punk?
Feel lucky, Draper? Chiefs by 3 - how much are you willing to lose?

Marc the Greek

South Africa's Finest
Gary Anderson has a new job.

Marc

Acting and reacting
My feelings about 9/11 aren't entirely clear to me yet. In the scope of history, it's still a fresh event and nobody's really sure what it means yet. In twenty years we may look at that day as the begginning of a series of terrorist attacks, each one worse than the last. Or, it may be viewed as a wake-up call, the event that shook the Americans out of their post-Cold War slumber to the realization that its still a scary world and their a number of people in that world that would like to see alot of us dead. In this respect, the day could prove to be a sort of Pearl Harbor.

I haven't seen any of the news coverage today, because I've been at work all day, but I can imagine its nothing short of maudlin and garish. However, there is no escaping this day being used as a call-to-arms. The events of that day should lead to a reexamination of our country.

It's not scapegoating to say that because of 9/11, we need to get real in our pursuit of international terrorists. It's not scapegoating to say that becaue of 9/11, we have to begin a dialogue in this country about the balance between liberty and security. It's not scapegoating to say that because of 9/11, our priorities must change.

(For a look at the way the homeland security issue can be used in an election irresponsible, and dangerously, click here.)

The war in Iraq occured, in part, because of the events of 9/11. But it wasn't scapegoating and it wasn't diversionary. (Nor was it preemptive. Iraq was in the process of a twelve year breech of a UN resolution and the Saddam regime contributed to the instability in a region in which stability transaltes to saftey for the United States.) Whether Saddam Hussein had direct links to 9/11 is irrelevent at this point. The War on Terrorism isn't about isolated, targed response to only those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It's about wiping out foreign and domestic threats to American security wherever we find them. Iraq posed a threat to American secuirty, and we took efforts to neutralize that threat. And while I don't think that attacking Iraq is going to stop terrorists from targeting this country, it was successful in two ways. It ridded the world of Saddam Husein and it served as the first step in a process of convincing potential terrorits that if you are even considering attacking us, we will retailiate with extreme prejudice.

The first and most important concern of any government is the security of its people. On 9/11 that security was breeched. If we fail to be moved to action by the events of that day, it will undoubtedly happen again.

Tony

9/11 Survivors Zinged
Greg Easterbrook is my hero: read this.

Marc

A Poem
See Draper - I'm not a complete Philistine.
First saw this on Little Green Footballs.

There Will Be No Peace

Though mild clear weather
Smile again on the shire of your esteem
And its colours come back, the storm has changed you:
You will not forget, ever,
The darkness blotting out hope, the gale
Prophesying your downfall.

You must live with your knowledge.
Way back, beyond, outside of you are others,
In moonless absences you never heard of,
Who have certainly heard of you,
Beings of unknown number and gender:
And they do not like you.

What have you done to them?
Nothing? Nothing is not an answer:
You will come to believe - how can you help it? -
That you did, you did do something;
You will find yourself wishing you could make them laugh,
You will long for their friendship.

There will be no peace.
Fight back, then, with such courage as you have
And every unchivalrous dodge you know of,
Clear in your conscience on this:
Their cause, if they had one, is nothing to them now;
They hate for hate's sake.

--W. H. Auden

Marc

Burrito hut.
Anyway...not really just, go here...

And please, don't attack me.

Dean-Clark 2004?
Howard Dean, who has been meeting with General Wesley Clark several times over the past few months, has asked the retired general to join his Presidential campaign, possibly as Vice-President, sources say. This is a bold move on Dean's part, but I like it. I think it goes toward answering some of the questions I blogged about yesterday. Clark has a speech to give in Iowa later this month where his intentions will probably be made known.

Democrats seem to get excited by candidates who don't know if they want to run, (see Mario Cuomo), but all Cuomo ever proved to be was a giant pain in the ass. If you want to be president, you've gotta want it, no questions asked. It's a humiliating, exhausting, mind-bogglin experience, and if you have any kind of chance, you can't allow yourself doubts. I'd rather have a candidate who knows what he wants and is willing to get it, then a diva who needs to be assured that his ass will be kissed by everyone he speaks to before he will even consider honoring his country by running for president.

Clark isn't the only candidate who's got supporters out there, despite their unknown (or in this case known) intentions. People want Gore. (Although, Gore may have set this site up himself, I haven't heard what he's been up to lately.)

The Gore website points to a recent Zogby poll indicating that people, by a 52 to 40 margin (8 undecided) think someone new deserves to be reelected. This is a typical polling question at about this point in the election cycle, but the results are a little misleading. Americans are both leary of extended stints in power, and naturally optimistic. As long as the question is status quo versus what might be, Americans tend to lean toward what might be. Until a pollster puts a opponents name in the question. Then, the President's record can be measured against something concrete (his potential opponents record) instead of whoever the respondent has in mind at the time of the question. Also, the other candidates negatives will drive up the Presidetns number. Right now 52% of the respondents think someone deserves to be elected. Replace that with a name (Dean, Kerry, Gephardt...) and that number's going down.

Since today is the 2nd anniversary of 9/11, and I'm such a stickler for flag etiquette, check out these rules.

Tony

Just a thought...forever fleeting
Hey...I've added something to my site...something that just struck me...A treatise on being, we

Draper

Laugh About It, Shout About It When You've Got to Choose
My thoughts on last nights' debate at Morgan State (I even took notes!):

Dean is being auditioned by black Dems

This is the big story of this debate. Dean is now being taken seriously as the probable nominee, so now he has to show what he is willing to do for the black political establishment. Last night, Dean signalled that he is 100% in line with them.

Dean's stance on Palestinian terrorism may not help him with Jews, but it was music to the ears of the black members of the audience. I don't know if you've picked this up, but black people don't like Jews, so Dean's willingness to play 'fair' with Jew-murdering terrorists doesn't hurt him too much. With the new campaign-finance laws and his talent for harvesting small contributions, he is far less dependent than someone like Bill Clinton on big-money Hollywood producers and others who would demand support for Israel.

The Juan Williams question on gun contol (implying that Dean only favored it in predominantly black jurisdictions) was perceived by many to be a cheap shot, but I think it was just part of the audition process. Most importantly, Dean came right out with his support of affirmative action. There will be no Sister Souljah moment for Howard Dean.

Why is Dick Gephardt so unelectable?

I can't figure out why more Dems don't support Gephardt. He is the prototypical, party-line Democrat. Once upon a time, Gephardt was pro-life, but over the course of his career, he has jettisoned all stances that contradict party dogma.

I asked Liz (a slightly left-of-center Dem) about it, and she responded with a hateful tirade against Gephardt. Maybe he just looks too much like an albino.

Exit stategy?

The Democrats really showed how much they are stuck in the Vietnam mindset. The one phraee that they (especially the veteran Kerry) love to include in their pissing and moaning about Iraq is "exit stategy". This is striped-pants speak for running home with your tail between your legs, a la Vietnam, Beirut, etc. The only real 'exit strategy' in Iraq is something this country used to aim for in war: total victory.

I think Dean is the only candidate who realizes that if you are against the war in Iraq (as Dean was), then you have to be FOR something. Global terrorism is not something George Bush invented - it is real. You have to say what you are going to do as president to eliminate this threat to national security. Dean made a start by denouncing anti-Semitic education in Saudi schools, something the current administration has been too gutless to do (because they're our allies, remember?).

And the winner is...

I thought Gephardt looked good, but see above. Kerry was boring and meaningless as always. Lieberman spent his time attacking the front-runner, which can only help Kerry and Gephardt. He needs to take down one of the second-tier guys and try to make it a Lieberman-Dean race.

So that leaves Dean. I thought he did a good job of parrying Palpatine's attacks without getting angry. He satisfied the black demands and he focused on foreign policy (the economy is a loser for Dems by February). Dean solidified his front-runner position.

Transcript here.

Marc

I've got questions
There's a scene in the political drama Primary Colors where, after a multi-candidate Democratic primary debate, the Carville-esque political consultant played by Billy Bob Thornton rhetorically asks his staff: "Did you see any other presidents on that stage tonight?" While I sat in the auditorium of Morgan State University during last night's Democratic debate, sponsored by Fox News Channel and the Congressional Black Caucus, that question stuck in my mind. Were there any presidents on the stage last night? Or, were those in attendance nothing more than standard-bearers in waiting?

It's more than an issue of Bush's perceived indestructibility; it has to do with who you can picture grabbing a party that is on the brink of irrelevancy by the horns. Who can you picture standing down terrorists, being firm when necessary and knowing when finesse is the more appropriate course of action? Who can sit in the situation room and be commander-in-chief of a military that is almost instinctively suspicious of the Democratic Party?

I decided not long ago that evaluating presidents based on issues, while being the most obviously intellectual method, might not be the best. Issues may change, or in the case of President Bush, emerge without getting very much press during the campaign. Compromise is inevitable and desirable in our system of government, so choosing a candidate based on his support of issues you care about will almost always lead to disappointment.

I agreed with a lot, if not all, of what was said on stage last night, as I suspect most Democratic voters did. But what the Democratic party needs now is not someone who can articulate the party position, but someone who can be an effective president. Who has the combination of strength, intelligence, executive ability and good instincts necessary to turn campaign promises into policy initiatives and eventually law? That's the only relevant question, and after last night, it remains unanswered.

Tony

And the circle broadens...
Well itsy well, itsy well...

We have an audience now...the first outsider has found us...look busy.

I would highly recommend the Western MD connection blog...is entertaining...a bit more manically topical...but you know...a different pace...suiting the poster thereon...Sprague and Dennis and that lot...

Draper

Peachbacks
Just got back from the Democratic hootenanny - more about that tomorrow. For now, feast your eyes on this.

Just another illustration of Orndoff's Law: everything now is worse than it used to be.

Marc

Times, they are'a changing...
Hey Jerks...where are you guys...post, post.

Jobby, jobs...am redoing a resume and cover letter to JHU...this fucking incredible job just around the corner from my apt is still open...

Have recently been thinking that this most recent round of PhD applying coming up that I'll only send a few apps out (Wyoming, Ga. St., and Pitt)...and focus instead to get some work experience and finish my MA without the added pressure of sending a million apps out...

What that means, practically is that it's looking more likely that Charm City will be graced with my prescence not just for one more year, but two...though...well, still going to try but the way things are for applying to grad schools...it will be just too rushed...to ask three professor to prepare ten letters of recc...three is more doable...will see though...no doubt...

Draper

Politics, schmolitics...
Although, I don't know if you guys know or not but the Dems for Pres will be at Morgan St. tomorrow...debating and whatnought...thought I'd pass that along.

Anyway...I am fucking tired...I dunno why, somebody please give me a job.

draper