MSN's search engine must be awful

I find it funny to look at what search strings bring vistors to my site. My favorite of all time, of course, is the Elizabeth Edwards big fat cow string. I did not have those words in that order on my page, but they were all there in one entry or another.

But today I got found through wedding of Michael Huffington and Ariana. Not believing that particular string could really bring up my site, I tried it, through MSN's search, which was how this person did it. My site was the only one to come up.

More useful every day--Not!

Of course, divorce of Michael Huffington and Ariana lands you 23 hits.

(The search engine of record, Google, gets you 110 and 43 hits, respectively, on the Huffington strings. The Elizabeth Edwards one gets you 3230.)

UPDATE: Today, I've been hit twice by people searching on MSN for Peter Uberoth, which appears once on this page with no real information about him. Yet, through MSN, I'm fourth of 34 about him--but only if you spell Peter Ueberroth's name wrong! My bad, Peter! (I'm leaving the bad spelling below since, hey, it generates hits.)

To Boldly Go To Go Boldly

Via Plucky Punk, another quiz:

Jean-Luc Picard

An accomplished diplomat who can virtually do no wrong, you sometimes know it is best to rely on the council of others while holding the reins.

There are some words which I have known since I was a schoolboy. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." These words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie -- as a wisdom, and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

Jean-Luc is a character in the Star Trek universe. This "The Next Generation" fan site has an outline of his career.

What's disturbing is that there are more Wesley Crushers than Picards . . .

Today's Rant: Corporatism

I missed "Fair and Balanced Friday" yesterday. I had this post most of the way finished and ready to go, and then-- I was busy. Yeah, I know. Me. Busy. On a Friday. Who woulda thunk it? But I was. Anyhow:

A while back I promised everyone an essay on why we hate Joe Lieberman. I mean, I don't hate him personally, or anything, but a lot of Democrats and progressives vow that they will never vote for Holy Joe, at least not without holding their noses while they do it.

Among the reasons people give are Joe's moralizing and overt religiosity, his monotone, his perceived conservatism, his lackluster performance against Dick "Big Time" Cheney in the 2000 debate, and his rolling over during the Florida recount (he'd won his senate seat; why bother?). My favorite description of Joe compared him to Eeyore, from the Winnie the Pooh books and cartoons: "Oh, bother," in that kind of sad droning whine. There's a very damning article about all of his faults here.

But above all, people were outraged at the image of Joe as corporate toady. He's been described as "one of the most conservative and pro-corporate Democrats in the U.S. Senate." Common Dreams "wonders what sections of the Bible or Talmud he is relying on to justify being a wholly-owned Senate subsidiary of drug and insurance companies, military contractors and the nuclear power industry - all of which contribute heavily to his campaign coffers?" Common Dreams also points out that Lieberman "has also opposed medical insurance reform, except in watered-down industry- friendly versions, and argued against permitting patients to sue HMOs for punitive damages. One of Lieberman's biggest campaign contributors is the insurance industry." Perhaps most damning is the fact that

Lieberman lead the charge to prevent the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) from instituting proper accounting of stock options. One of the ways Enron and other corporations are overstating their profits is by not including the stock options that they issue to their top executives against their profits. These stock options do not show up as a cost on a corporation's financial statements. Lieberman with the support of big corporations prevented the FASB from implementing this change. Enron and other corporations used this accounting practice to deceive investors and employees.

Sure, that was a Green Party article, but even the Republicans blame him for that!

It's no accident that I quoted the Greens, though. A lot of people blame the Green Party and Ralph Nader for the situation we're in now. (A lot of other people blame Lieberman.) The Greens claimed that there was no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. That is, of course, a lie. There are plenty of institutional differences that keep me voting Democratic: choice, health care, federal judgeships, affirmative action, and more.

But where it is clear that no real difference exists is in the realm of corporatism. There, the Greens have it right. We Dean supporters have plenty of bones to pick with Lieberman and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) lately. But I personally feel that the worst damage the DLC, Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and their like have done to the Democratic Party is make us too much like Republicans in our reliance on corporate cash and, consequently, on our subservience to corporate wishes.

In no way are all Democrats as bad as Republicans. In fact, I think in general Democrats are nowhere near as bad as Republicans. But the Republicans currently in charge--the "neoconservatives," as they're called--and the establishment DLC types have too much in common in this area.

The neocons, of course, are all about the Project for the New American Century, which relies on the military-industiral complex. The DLC relies much more in the entertainment-industrial complex. But above all, both groups are what could be called Cheap Labor Conservatives (CLC).

The CLCs by and large are interested in letting corporations, who are by far their biggest source of political support, treat workers like crap. They are much more interested in free-trade policies like NAFTA and GATT (passed under Clinton, supported by Lieberman), because these agreements allow for cheap production overseas, than in supporting unions and workers here at home. CLCs are opposed to employment and social programs (Clinton "ended Welfare as we [knew] it" and Lieberman has warned against Dean's plan to repeal the Whopper's tax cuts to provide for those among us in need), since the more we can keep people poor, the less we have to pay them to clean the bathrooms at the Wal-Mart.

The United States has almost totally lost its traditional sources of economic strength. Agricultural and manufacturing jobs are disappearing. (What's really disturbing is how the family farm is being eaten by cheap-labor corporations with the assent of our government!) All we're left with is service jobs. Two-thirds of our GDP anymore is consumer spending. We are a nation now not of production but consumption. This is what screwed Rome, my friends.

It's obvious why PNAC neocons need cheap labor: There must be cheap products to spread around the world under American corporate leadership. But the DLC's support seems suspect. I think it goes back to 1984: Walter Mondale lost, really badly, in 1984, and he lost after opposing Reagan's give-backs to the corporations and wealthy donors. The DLC formed and decided that, since Mondale lost on that platform, the way to win would be to adopt the Republican position vis a vis corporations. The DLC came of age with Bill Clinton, and they often take credit (wrongly, in my opinion) for his victory. But under Clinton and since, CLC policies have taken priority, with DLC complicity.

And this is why Joe Lieberman and the DLC must be stopped. Period.

But beyond that, we need to completely divorce corporate influence from politics. Absolutely. So, in the spirit of not just complaining about the problem but offering a solution, too, I present the Folkbum Federal Campaign Finance Reform Package:

1. Disabuse ourselves of the notion that spending money is the same as free speech. It isn't. And it isn't fair, either, since the poor and those who represent the poor will never be able to afford as much "speech" as the wealthy or those who represent the wealthy. And if influence is purchased through campaign donations or campaign commercials, the the influence advantage automatically goes to the wealthy. One $2000 donor will wield more influence than 1000 $1 donors, and that's not democracy. This means no non-candidate TV or print ads.
2. Outlaw lobbyists. I don't want to outlaw lobbying: You can still call, fax, email, or visit your congresscritter to deliver your personal opinion on things and ask it to vote in a certain way on a certian subject. That's democracy, my friend. But I want to outlaw everyone who works for PHARMA or the Sierra Club or AARP or NEA, basically anyone who asks for stuff while on someone else's dime. That's not democracy.
3. Limit contributions only to those who can actually vote for the candidate being donated to. That eliminates out-of-state contributors, as well as contributions from non-individuals, PACs, unions, and all.
4. Eliminate the caps on individual contributions. Yes, you read that right: If you have a million, donate a million. If you have a nickel, donate a nickel.
5. Have all contributions sent first to a central disbursement center run by the FEC. You can locate this somewhere like Pueblo, Colorado, or wherever you want. But the money comes in there first, and then gets distributed regularly to the candidates.
6. Here's why the last two will work: When campaign funds are distributed to the candidates, they receive an alphabetical list of contributors without any details of how much they gave! It's ingenious, really; I can claim that I donated a million when I only donated a nickel. Those used to buying influence now will be relieved of the pressure to donate such large sums. And candidates will be beholden to all contributors equally! Again, that is democracy.

Of course, it's probably blatantly unconstitutional, but it's worth a shot. And the damage already done by the neocons, the DLC, and cheap-labor conservatives will take a long time to undo, and much of it may never be undone. But we need to try.

Howard Dean=Elwood Blues?

If there aren't enough reasons to support Howard Dean already:

"Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, is set to continue his attention-grabbing campaign by playing harmonica tomorrow night at a Des Moines blues club."

What are they smoking?

Via Talk Left, we find the "Granite Staters" for Medical Marijuana voter guide, wherein Howard Dean scores an F+ (should have done a little more studying there at medical school, Howard!).

They write,

Dean is the only candidate who has actually killed a medical marijuana bill. [. . .] Dean recently retreated from his earlier pledge to direct the FDA to study medical marijuana. His reversal and his actions have shown that medical marijuana patients can never trust him.

As Jon Stewart would say, "Whaaaaaaaa?"

I seem to remember this from the other night:

KING: Santa Cruz, California, hello.

CALLER: Hi Governor Dean. My question to you is, given your medical background and your view on states' rights, in your opinion, what should the federal government do about medical marijuana?

DEAN: I don't think they should throw people in jail in California, but I think do think--here's what I think. I think the process by which medical marijuana is being legalized is the wrong process. I don't like it when politicians interfere in medicine. It's why I am very pro-choice. Because I don't think that is the government's business. So what I will do as president is, I will require the FDA within first 12 months to evaluate marijuana and see if it is, in fact, a decent medicine or not. If it is, for what purposes [. . .]. But we have to do the FDA studies. I think marijuana should be treated like every other drug in the process and there shouldn't be a special process which is based on politics to legalize it.

What "reversal"? I don't see it.

Howard Dean's position is simple: He does not want lawmakers or voters practicing medicine. Period. That's why he is pro-choice, why he supports using the FDA to legalize medical marijuana, and why he supports treating drug addiction like a disease, not a crime.

What I really like, though, is this juicy bit from the "Granite Staters" web site:

This campaign is staffed and funded by the Marijuana Policy Project
P.O. Box 77492 - Capitol Hill - Washington, DC - 20013

That's why "Granite Staters" should really be in quotation marks. The Marijuana Policy Project's whole purpose for existing to is work to enact new legislation and redact old legislation. Any candidate who proposes any solution to the medical marijuana question that is not legislative in nature will fail by their standards.

Too bad for Howard Dean, who is instead willing to let doctors make the medical decisions.

By the way, the only candidate who receives higher than a C is that say-what-your-hippie-fans-want-to-hear marvel Dennis Kucinich.

UPDATE: I received a FAIR and BALANCED email from Aaron Houston, whose office is, admittedly, in New Hampshire, who writes:

Thank you for your feedback related to Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana's (GSMM) website and particularly, for your input on Governor Dean's page in the voter guide. As you probably know, campaigns are sometimes hectic, so thank you for bringing the omission to our attention.

We have changed Governor Dean's page based on the information you sent. Please visit http://www.granitestaters.com/guide/dean.html to view the updated page.

Also check out Aaron's comment in the comments below. And Howard Dean's new grade? F+! Sigh.

More Movies I Will Not See

Inspired a little by a post I did the other day, here's a list of Movies I Will Not See this summer or, jeebus willing, ever:

2 Fast 2 Furious (2 dumb 2 B 4 real)
American Wedding (I had enough at my own, thank you)
Daddy Day Care (Eddie Murphy was better in leather pants)
Kangaroo Jack (I'm staying home to listen to my Kasey Chambers CDs)
Lara Croft, Tomb Raider 2 (I'm not a 13 year-old boy anymore)
Dumber and Dumberer (I just watch Rice and Rumsfeld)
Gigli (this one writes its own jokes)
Freddy vs. Jason (my foot vs. your ass)
Charlie's Angels 2 (you can't spell T & A without Demi Moore!)
Bruce Almighty (although Morgan Freeman is divine)
Pirates of the Carribean (I'm not an 8 year old boy any more)
T3 (I've got CNN; that's enough Arnie)
Wrong Turn (wrong movie)

On a more serious note, go see Whale Rider. Now.

A Really Good Read

"The Progressive Case for Dean," by Nico Pitney.

Unsolicited Campaign Advice
for Howard Dean and others

On the California Recall
Howard Dean can't endorse Cruz Bustamante. In fact, only Joe Lieberman can endorse Cruz Bustamante, as Bustamante had already endorsed Joe Lieberman. Gray Davis is already out supporting John Kerry. That leaves Dean and six other candidates without the option of endorsing a Democrat, since the other Democrat who may have had a shot--John Garamendi--bowed out after Bustamante got in.

No Democrat--Dean included--should be endorsing Independent Ariana Huffington or Green Peter Camejo. They may end up being spoilers, leaving Bustamante with fewer votes than Independent (but very, very Republican) Peter Uberoth or Republican (but very, very Austrian) Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Of course, that all depends on what the vote count is on the top half of the ballot, which asks whether or not the recall should happen in the first place.

All nine Democratic candidates came out at the AFL-CIO forum this past week to aver that the recall was a bad idea and to support the embattled Davis. And on "Larry King Live" Dean made it clear that he saw the recall as an attempt by Republicans to subvert the will of the people: "[T]his is another attempt to overturn an election that was a legitimate election by the right wing," he said.

And that's a point that needs to be hammered home: The GOP is, right now, working furiously to destroy the very fabric from which this nation was woven. What we see in California, Texas, Colorado, and Georgia right now are more extensions of what we saw in Florida in 2000. The GOP got away with it there (thank you, Mr. Scalia), and now they feel they have license to do it everywhere. It must stop, and our Democrats need to make that clear.

So Howard Dean needs to spend time in California this month, encouraging "No" votes on the recall. He should probably be there for the September Meetup, and maybe even the October Meetup, too. But he needs to bring to bear all the resources of his committed troops to turning back Republican runs at destroying the democratic process.

On Gay Marriage
Speaking of Dean's appearance on "Larry King Live", my wife and I watched it, and at one point we both stared at the screen in disbelief. It was this exchange:

KING: On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were--we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberately chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people. [. . .]

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.

KING: And you personally would oppose it?

DEAN: I don't know, I never thought about that very much, because we didn't do it in our state for that reason.

"I never thought about that"! Oh, please! I say respectfully, that's a crock. How can you be Howard Dean and not have given thought to the idea of gay marriage?

At any rate, there are two ways Dean--or anyone else for that matter--can answer this question, I think.

Q: Do you personally oppose or support gay marriage?

A: Well, what I personally think is not important. I am not elected to do what I personally support--I'm elected to do what's best for the American people, which, frankly, may not even be what the American people personally support.

That's a weak answer, yes, but it gets around the question a heck of a lot better than "I never thought about it." But this one's better:

Q: Do you personally oppose or support gay marriage?

A: If two of my gay friends were getting married, I'd offer the Rose Garden for them to do it in. I can't look my friends in the eye and tell them that their love is wrong, that their commitment to each other is invalid. I just can't. And if their church or their state is willing to marry them, I want it to be as perfect and beautiful for them as the day I married my wife was for me."

On the Second Anniversary of September 11
September 11 cannot be politicized. What I mean by that is not that it's impossible to do it, but that we must not let it happen.

To that end, September 11, 2003, needs to be a day off from campaigning. Clear the schedule, completely. Then on September 12, and going for the next two weeks, at least, hold a series of town hall meetings or speeches in which you ask the question: "Do you feel safer now that you did two years ago?"

Dean answers this question all the time. Since long before I started following him, he was labasting the administration for inadequately funding first-responders and port security, to name two things.

The 9/11 Commission Report made clear that this administration does not take threats of terrorism seriously. The quagmire in Iraq proves it: Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with al Qaeda and 9/11, yet we are now up to our armpits over there, leaving us fully unprepared to handle any other threats should they arise. I don't know how on earth anyone--in the administration or not--thinks we could possibly be eyeing Iran or North Korea for attacks when we don't even have enough troops to adequately hold and defend the two countries--Afghanistan and Iraq--that we currently occupy!

On the Economy
I won't belabor this point, since long-time readers know how I stand on this, but the 2004 election is ours to win or lose on the economy.

We must not cede security and foreign policy, of course; even though it's a losing battle we need to remind the people that they are not in any way safer under Republican rule than under Democrats (see just above).

But we need to hammer home how horrible the economy is, as it looks like even a recovery will be a jobless one. That makes the Whopper the only president since they started keeping track to have a net loss of jobs on his watch.

Kos pointed this out last week, but for those of you who don't read him, first of all, you should read him, and second of all, realize this: Gray Davis is being recalled in California because he couldn't manage the economy: Rescuecalifornia.com says:

Under Gray Davis, California went from a surplus to a record $34.8 Billion deficit [. . .]. When companies go bankrupt, the CEO takes the blame. In covering up deficits and cooking the books in Enron-type accounting, Gray Davis has brought the state to bankruptcy.

Just plug the Whopper's name in there, and let it simmer for a while. That's how we win 2004.

Biden out; Clark still undeclared; Edwards has TV; Kerry's planning a kick-off; will anyone notice?

Delaware Senator Joe Biden decided today he would not make it a field of ten. Good for him. He would be haunted by the specter of his 1988 campaign when he was caught plagiarizing. (All my students should count this as a lesson: If you're caught plagiarizing, you can still rise to the level of ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--but no higher!) Plus, he seems a little dull.

Retired General Wesley Clark still hasn't declared his intentions one way or the other. Some indicators are that it's a go; Political Wire notes a story at the National Journal that indicates Clark is telling his advisers to "crank it up." I haven't seen the evidence of such cranking; I'll get to a possible reason why in a moment.

I've said it before (and been spanked pretty hard for it) and I'll repeat it briefly here: I think it's too late for Clark to enter the race. Even Joe Biden--who would have lost for so many other reasons--cited timing as a factor in his announcement today. He said, "[A]t this late date, everything would have to fall perfectly into place, and I would have to put on hold what influence I have in the United States Senate in pursuit of what is now too much of a long shot." If Clark waits until even later, what changes the calculus for him? If it's too late for Biden, who has run for president before, and, on top of that, has mounted repeated successful state-wide campaigns, and enjoys considerable name-recognition and stature in the eyes of the public, then why is it not too late for Wesley Clark? Is Biden merely covering up the fact that he wouldn't have a shot based on his policy positions, or is he serious, that the horserace has progressed too far for him to have a shot at winning?

One of the things Clark supporters seem to be counting on is that a late entry will mean two things: First, he will have a chance to distinguish himself from the old, tired messages of the other candidates. I don't feel his positions--at least as they are laid out at the various Draft Clark sites--seem distinguishable from standard Democratic positions. (And they rely too much on language like "Clark has implied" for my tastes.)

But more importantly, Clark supporters feel that a late entry will create a tremendous media "splash," that will ensure that Clark's name and ideas get out there to everyone. John Edwards is relying on a late buy of TV time to accomplish the same thing; and John Kerry's waiting until after Labor Day to throw his official kickoff rally. Will it help? I don't know--we'll have new polling numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire soon to test the success of Edwards's endeavor.

The most uncertain factor in this whole thing, however, is the recall election going on right now in California. I said a few paragraphs up that I had not seen evidence of Clark's "cranking it up." That may very well be because a certain son-of-a-Nazi has entered the circus that is the recall.

I tend to agree with the Scrum--and others have articulated this, too--that the California recall election will be the top political story for the next three months. Period. Unless David Kay really does pull something. Even then, that's an iffy call. But my theory is that Biden's out now because he saw that the recall would totally steal his thunder.

Right now I predict some level of stasis, since no presidential candidate will be getting the kind of press we've been seeing in the past six months. And I believe that stasis will hold for Edwards, Kerry, and Clark.

I could be wrong, of course; but I've got a strong feeling on this one: The Schwarzenegger-Huffington-Simon circus will be all the rage, and the Democrats will get lost in the babble.

Around the Blogosphere

I so seldom do a good spotlight on what else is happening around the 'net; I thought today would be a good day for that.

Major Barbara at Arms and the Man has a good series of posts on the selling of Iraq to the Whopper's corporate buddies. Don't read it, though, if your blood pressure is already too high.

Julie over at Nasty Riffraff is one of many to run with the latest work of the sainted Henry Waxman, wherein he accuses the Whopper and his administration of sublimating science to the cause of ideology. She focuses on the Department of Education part of Waxman's report, something close to my own heart.

Ever since we got the TiVo, we don't go out to see movies much any more. Oh, yeah, and because the movies these days pretty much suck. Jesse at Pandagon reviews SWAT, a Movie I Will Not See. My favorite line from the review: "The bad guy is REALLY FRENCH."

Sadly, no! is always good. Period.

Time for another Weekend Open Thread!

Proposed topic: Your proposed topics. What do you want to see me pontificate on next week?

Go!

Don't these people have calendars?

NOTE: I'm re-posting this at the top, as a few people are linking to this post, and stupid (but free!) Blogger doesn't allow good permalinks.

So, Daily Kos Tuesday pointed us all to another in a series of articles trying to make a connection where none exists, between the 2004 presidential race and some race of the past. The article in question yesterday said that 2004 is like 1980, and Howard Dean is the Democrats' Ronald Reagan. (Although I like John Nichols--he's a Wisconsin boy and very smart. I just think he's wrong.)

Let's get one thing straight: It is not 1964, and Dean is not Goldwater. It is not 1968, and Dean is not McCarthy. It is not 1972, and Dean is not McGovern. It is not 1976, and Dean is not Carter. It is not 1984, and Dean is neither Hart nor Mondale. It is not 1988, and Dean is not Dukakis. It is not 1992, and Dean is neither Tsongas nor Clinton. It is not 1996, and Dean is not Dole. And it's certainly not 2000, either, and Dean is not McCain.

The fact is that it's 2004 (okay, 2003) and that this year's (okay, next year's) election will be unlike any other, period. Why? Three things.

1. The world has changed. < cliche >September 11, 2001, changed a lot of things. < /cliche > One of them is that many Democrats lost their backbones. Another is that Republicans saw an opportunity to turn this country into a one-party state. Howard Dean is the only candidate taking a stand against both of those things, and I believe he will win because of it.

Mary Landrieu, in her run-off election in 2002, defied conventional Democratic wisdom that said she shouldn't go after the Whopper and his failed policies, that she shouldn't attack. You know what? She did attack, and she won because of it. Look east a few states. Max Cleland, decorated war hero and accomplished Senator, opted not to go on the attack against the "popular" president. That left the game wide open for his opponent, Saxby Chambliss, to do the attacking; Chambliss portrayed the veteran Cleland as weak on defense and implying he supported Osama bin Laden and Saddam Houssein. Cleland lost.

What we see in California, Texas, Colorado, and Georgia right now are more extensions of what we saw in Florida in 2000. The Republicans are absolutely trying to subvert the electoral process; they're trying to do an end-run around democracy and make this nation a one-party state. Howard Dean recognizes that--he was very clear the other night on Larry King's show--and he knows what we're up against. I want my country back from those power-hungry fascists, don't you?

Especially once the recall gets going in California, this issue will get major, major play. A Democrat like Howard Dean who recognizes this kind of electoral arrogance and calls the Republicans on it will be successful.

2. The primaries this year are horrendously front-loaded. Within six weeks (January 13 to March 2), there are primaries in DC, IA, NH, SC, AZ, OK, DE, MO, NM, MI, WA, ME, VA, TN, WI, ID, UT, CA, CT, GA, MD, MA, MN, NY, OH, RI, VT, HI, ND, and TX. That's 30 out of 51, folks. We will know on the morning of March 3 who the nominee is. Period. There is no time for anyone not building momentum and pulling ahead now to win. A candidate has to have broad and deep support in money and volunteers, and it has to all be in place well before January 19, when Iowans gather to caucus, as there will be no time to rest or build momentum after that.

That gives Dean a leg up in the primaries, sure; but what about in the general? So many of these previous-year comparisons area about the general election, not the primaries, right? Good point, but . . .

3. These changes have brought a new way of doing things. Okay, the cliché was that 9/11 would bring us all closer, make us nicer and stuff. No one can say that Dean's campaign is any nicer than any of the others' (except maybe Carol Moseley Braun). But Dean's campaign does demonstrate something about that change: The people are moving his campaign, not so much vice-versa.

I've written about this before, but it bears repeating: The exciting thing, to me, about Howard Dean's campaign is empowerment. Howard Dean is doing that better than any other candidate.

They're calling Dean's success "People-powered Howard," which has a nice ring to it and all, and it's very, very true. Dean is not being made by the media, he is not being made by high-powered advisors and spinmeisters; Dean is being made by the people who are falling over themselves to join up with his campaign. That has never happened before. If you can name one instance, tell me, please.

But what draws me again and again to Dean--even when I wince at a misstatement or puzzle over some questions about his record--is the empowerment. I'm a Howard-powered person. Dean's campaign allows me--hell, encourages me--to take a leadership role, to take initiative, to suggest ideas and campaign strategy. Dean's campaign is not top-down. While it's not fully bottom-up, either, it operates in a way that gives people true ownership of the campaign, a real sense of belonging, and a feeling of importance.

Kerry wants me to vote for him. Edwards and Lieberman, too. That's the old model. Howard Dean wants me to work for him, and he wants to hear about it when I'm successful, and offer me help when I need it. That's the new model.

Yeah, I know, every candidate for however far back you want to look has inspired people to quit their jobs and hitch-hike, if necessary, to campaign headquarters to work for the guy. But we have never seen anything like what Howard Dean has done. We're not talking about a few dozen or hundred people hoping to be interns; we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people taking leadership in their own communities and running a real grass-roots campaign.

However, I think that the non-top-down-ness of Dean's campaign is exactly what's got so many of his opponents--including the Democratic Leadership Council--so worried.

The DLC thinks they have the right answer; You can hear again and again how successful the DLC has been and may still be. But that success is predicated on presenting candidates who follow a script both in their policy initiatives and in their performance. Some win (Jennifer Granholm); some lose (Max Cleland).

But Howard Dean does not follow the script for performance, even if he almost entirely does for policy. And he's having success at it--greater success, in fact, than any of the DLC's candidates in this race.

Lieberman and Edwards--who are probably the DLC's most prominent guys in this race--are really running old-model campaigns. Raise a lot of money. Don't be too negative. Wait until you buy TV time to get your name out there. And what's happening? Lieberman's falling like a rock and Edwards is spinning his wheels.

Gephardt's running an old-model campaign, as well, but not DLC-style. He's chasing unions and raising money instead of doing his job. He's not failing the way DLC candidates are, but Dean's new way has Gephardt on the run in Iowa, which should be a lock for him.

Kerry, too, is running an old-style campaign. He's trying to capture the feeling of RFK's 1968 run, but he's stuck in the 1990's, instead. And, again, Dean has him on the run in New Hampshire, a state that should be a lock for Kerry.

When the way you do business gets threatened by a new business model, you fight back. I am not surprised to see the retaliation against Dean. But that retailiation confirms what I've been saying: Dean is the new way; everyone else is running on an out-dated plan. If you don't get that, you won't get Dean, and you will be shocked when he takes it all.

UPDATE with reposting: I did not originally mention how Democrats' electoral calculus is changing, too, and how we can now win without the South--something we may have to do whether the nominee is Dean or not, and something we couldn't have doe eight years ago. Some people are calling it the Gore Gambit--maybe the Gore Gamble would be a better name--but if Gore had won New Hampshire in addition to all the states he did win, and he would have pulled off the victory without a single southern state, even without his home state of Tennessee. The electoral numbers changed with 2000's redistricting, so New Hampshire plus West Virginia (which really ought to be Democratic) is a 269-269 tie. We need AZ, NV, or CO. AZ and NV are definitely in play. Call it the Dean Gambit (though Dean does not plan to write off the South): the Gore states plus WV and NV. A winning 270, without the South.

Meetup Report: August in Milwaukee

Well, again, tremendous thanks need to go the the proprietors of the Milwaukee Ale House, who moved a regularly-scheduled event for us, so we could use the downstairs deck there by the river. They deserve all the money you could possibly give them. And I think we gave them a lot last night--the unofficial count is around 120 Meetuppers, very clearly our best total yet.

Bridget and Carin were running the big show last night, and they were awesome. Absolutely amazing. Despite some early troubles with sound systems, Everything went almost totally without a hitch.

Bridget asked two people to speak--Chris, a first-timer, and Brad, who had just moved here from Brooklyn, New Yawk, where he was active in Brooklyn for Dean. Both speakers were brief but eloquent about why they support Howard Dean.

Then, we had some "getting to know you" and brainstorming time. Bridget and Carin asked us at our tables to think about ways to improve outreach to other communities besides the very wired and, admittedly, very white crowd in attendance last night. I'm looking forward to the executive summary of those suggestions--just in the little bit I could overhear at other tables, it sounded like a really good collection of ideas, and I hope we'll be able to put them into practice in the coming months.

I spoke about the impending visit from the Governor on August 23--it's not up in Dean's Sleepless Summer page yet, but we expect him here in town as a part of that tour. Plus there's still time for Wisconsinites to register to host or attend a house party with a conference call from the governor on August 17!

My wife talked about our house concert/ fundraiser on August 25 featuring singer/ songwriter Darryl Purpose. Rochelle talked about all the Dean Community Corps volunteer efforts we're doing this month. To help out on those, you should join Milwaukee for Dean, so you can continue to receive updates about them and other things.

Then the meat of the Meetup: We wrote to the New Hampshirese New Hampshirites New Hampshirans Granite-Staters. We had 110 packets to go through--220 names--and I got back 91 of them. I have to assume that the others disappeared when the rain started and people moved inside or went home. I am hopeful that the letters got written anyway. If anyone did take white sheets home, please, follow the "email me" link on the right and email me the numbers from your packets after you right the letters! The numbers are just below the addresses inside your packets.

All of the take-home names got taken home, too, and I feel good that many of those letters will be written, as well.

The disappointing part of the Meetup this month was that there was no press. Sigh. Fax Mistress Stacie did her best to spread the word, but--nothing. Thanks for trying, Stacie.

Thanks also need to go to Michael, whose work at the literature table is nothing short of amazing, and Tony, who gets everyone to sign in no matter what. I like that. You rock, guys. Hats are also to be tipped to Carrie, who helped a whole lot before the big show began, and Erik, for solving our sound problems. Go Team Dean! I should also mention Meagan and Tony's efforts at African World Fest last weekend, and Jim and Tony's work at State Fair. (Tony sure does a lot, doesn't he? Maybe we should all go to his house party to say thank you!)

I got to meet a lot of great new people and reconnect with old faces, and I hope to see all of them at future Milwaukee for Dean events. I feel more and more positive every day about this campaign and the way it is very quickly moving to the front. Milwaukee is going to be critical to Dean's efforts to win Wisconsin--and win it he will, both in February and in November--and I continue to feel like we're really unstoppable.

The Bjorn Munson of the California Recall
or, an in-joke you probably don't get
well, Stacie will

Beloit College students of a certain era--my era, that is--will recognize and appreciate Brian Flemming's platform: "If elected, I will resign."

(Link via Pandagon.)

UPDATE: Brian Flemming has dropped out of the race, unrelated to Ahnuld's entry.

Happy Ann-i-ver-sa-ry, Happy Ann-i-ver-sa-ry, Happy Ann-i-ver-sa-ry, Haaaaaaaaaapy Annivers-a-ry!
(it works better if you sing it)

Five years ago today, it was. The wedding was great, a small gathering of friends and family and The Common Faces (before they broke up, and they've been gone so long they don't have a website I can link to any more. Sigh). And I wouldn't give up a minute of the five years since, not for anything.

Which makes the timing of Ben's post today at Hoy*Puh*Loy very appropriate. He recommends a five-year binding marriage contract, with the option to renew.

I'd renew again and again.

Right Hand? Meet Left Hand.

Well, last I looked, the terror alert status button on the right there still was at Bert. But it seems like it could go up to Ernie any minute now. And forget about ever seeing the Oscar the Grouch or even Cookie Monster again. (Elmo, of course, is red--when we get really scared, we start talking about ourselves in the third person.)

I almost drove off the road this morning when I heard two near-consectutive reports on NPR. First, the gubmint says that in the next couple of months, Al Qaeda is likely to try hijacking planes again.

At the same time, the Transportation Security Administration is announcing that they're laying off air marshals on many domestic and international flights.

Sigh. If I had more time, I would remind you of all the other actions this administration has taken directly endangering our interests and citizens. I don't have the stomach for it now, either.

Weekend Open Thread

Okay, you guys are getting better at this comments stuff on the open threads. Last weekend, I actually had five whole comments! Let's try for seven this time. Whaddya say?

And to get us started, my first big essay this week will be about why some Democrats hate Joe Lieberman. What is it about him that makes you want to hold your nose as you vote for him? I've got theories, but let me hear your ideas, too.

Recommended reading: Grubi's new Dem Poll. And go make the bat move, and help us dick Cheney before he dicks us.

Now I Have Made the Big Leagues

A week or so ago, I became the subject of a thread on Democratic Underground. But today, something beyond my wildest dreams: I got a mention on the Daily Kos front page!

I decided to take folkbum's suggestion and turn this Cattle Call into a drinking game (hey, it is Friday, after all!):

Has anyone else thought about making this comment thread into a drinking game? Take drink when someone posts that

• Lieberman's a Republican
  
• Dean is unelectable
  
• Kos is just Deanist propaganda
  
• Kos should include Clark in the rankings
  
• Gephardt has no eyebrows
  
• it's too late for Clark to enter
  
• it's not too late for Clark to enter
  
• Kos ignored the fact that Edwards had a good week (DavidNYC's addition to the list)

I would add

X is unelectable

since that argument is now used by the backers of just about every candidate out there (except for Kucinich fans, who just want to enjoy their guy until it's time to back the Democratic nominee).

The big irony, of course, is that I don't even drink!

That's a little much for your humble folkbum to handle. It almost makes up for the "Service Engine Soon" light coming on in my Saturn. Sigh.

Must-Reads

Rep. Jan Schakowsky at In These Times.

If we are serious about getting rid of George W. Bush in 17 months, then we have to make some decisions and some commitments. During the war, a couple of nuns came to see me in my Chicago office. They were on their way to jail to serve a three-month sentence for an aggravated misdemeanor for protesting the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. They crossed a line in the road and now they were going to prison. Think of it. Anyway, on their way to jail, they had been arrested on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago in an antiwar protest. The police got a bit carried away even though the City Council had passed a strong antiwar resolution.

The nuns wanted to know what could be done to change the state of affairs. I said I thought someone needed to take voter registration forms to every meeting and demonstration and get people fired up to vote. They said that would be hard. Why? Because people were fed up with the Democrats. I said, then they are going to have to get over it, and you are going to have to help them. Because like it or not, either George W. Bush or the Democratic nominee, whoever he may be, will be our next president.

All of you know who I'm talking about; I may be talking about you. We should, by all means, be working to promote a progressive agenda with each and every candidate and to make the nominee as progressive as possible.

But in the end, we are going to have to dedicate ourselves to electing the Democrat. To do otherwise is a luxury we cannot afford. I look forward to our campaign for a universal health care plan or a real education bill or labor law reform. We cannot even have that conversation now. We are trying to hang on by our fingernails to what we have now. And we are losing.

"Other Priorities" at The Likely Story.

Cheney refused to serve in Vietnam. He received four 2-S draft deferments -- granted to students -- from 1963 through 1965 while he was a student at the University of Wyoming. He married Lynne in 1964, and was thus banned from the draft.

But in October 1965, the Selective Service announced that married men without children could then be drafted. Exactly nine months and two days later -- on July 28, 1966 -- his first child was born. Cheney hadn't waited until her birth before he sought a 3-A deferment classification -- given to those with dependents. He did so when Lynne was only 10 weeks pregnant.

Cheney said to a reporter in 1989, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

Howard Dean's Shadow Cabinet
note: I started writing this before I saw the open thread with this topic on the unofficial Dean blog. I have not yet read it; once I get this posted, I'll take a look and see what everyone else is saying. Also, a big thanks to Matt Langer over at Untelevised, whose "Political Quick Reference" was a great help and inspiration.

second note: I have tried to fill most every posiion, although I'm sure I missed one or two somewhere. Two sources of potential cabinet members that I have not really explored are academia and think-tanks, as I'm less familiar with those fields. None of these people have been vetted by the appropriate agencies, and, in some cases I'm not entirely sure which way their political sails blow, but based on their bios and records seem good for the jobs. In terms of people from the political sphere, I tried to keep an eye on Congress, the Senate, especially, and did not tap people who would be replaced by Republican governors or leave a too-Republican district, since we need to keep Congress at least as close as it is now. And this cabinet would work for any Dem candidate, really.

third note: Comments, please!

Secretary of Agriculture: Iowa Governor Thomas Vilsack. Leadership in Iowa, of course, means leadership on agricultural issues. Even if Vilsack later comes down endorsing Gephardt, he and Dean seem to get along whenever they meet. In addition, having Vilsack on board will help to ensure that Iowa stays blue this time around.

Attorney General: Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. Doyle is someone who gives a rip about civil rights and the idea of justice--the name of the department he will head. He was Wisconsin's AG before moving down the hall to the big office. Plus, it leaves Barbara Lawton in the governor's office here, and she's just awesome.

Secretary of Commerce: Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Unsafe at Any Speed ushered in an area of consumer protection the likes of which we've never seen rivaled. His concern for the means, whatever the ends might be, is valuable and refreshing. Despite what you may think of him for his actions in 2000--and some of them were despicable, sure--he cares about the consumer, the voter, and the process.

Secretary of Defense: West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller. This is a post where an academic may fit better, but Rockefeller's got the experience, knowledge, and gravitas to pull it off, having spent time on the Intelligence, Veterans' Affairs, and International Relations committees. His quiet determination stands in stark contrast to Rumsfeld's snarkiness, and Rockefeller, I'm certain, will not honk off the brass with any autocratic abuses.

Secretary of Education: Executive Director of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform Warren Simmons. Simmons is a leading figure in public school reform (the good kind) as well as a respected leader among minority groups and the post-secondary establishment. He can address many of the major concerns of the day--increasing minority enrollment in colleges and universities, strengthening public schools, and working on student loan and tuition troubles.

Secretary of Energy: Executive Director of the American Wind Energy Association Randall Swisher. Swisher comes with a ton of legislative experience, though mostly as staff, as well as from a broad network of alternative and renewable energy partnerships.

Director of the Environmental Protection Agency: Audobon Society Director Juliet P. Tammenoms Bakker. Bakker has her feet firmly in both the environmental and business communities and can help these two groups work together and actually improve the environment.

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Julie Gerberding. Despite her use of the non-existent word impactful, she comes with a major knowledge not only of public health but also of dealing with bioterror issues, something that should let us all rest a little easier. At least, since I have experience living under Tommy Thompson, any way to get rid of him will let me rest easier.

Secretary of Homeland Security: Uber-Democrat Gary Hart. No monkey business here: Hart has been telling he Whopper's administration what needed to happen in terms of defending ourselves from terrorists since January 2001, and if the Whopper had listened, 9/11 may very well not have happened.

Director of Housing and Urban Development: Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow. She is a rising star in the Democratic party who, like Vilsack, Rockefeller, and others could help carry states if they're part of a shadow cabinet. But beyond that, she is a talent, too, who could make a real difference at HUD. I know, who cares about HUD, right? But HUD is on the front lines of the fight against poverty, and a real activist, supported by her president, could lead a revolution on how we work with the poor.

Secretary of the Interior: Washington Senator Ron Wyden. A good chunk of Wyden's resume has to do with his tooth-and-nail fighting for Oregon's environment. I like that.

Drug Czar: Director of the Drug Policy Alliance Nathan Nadelmann. According to the DPA's website: "Drug Policy Alliance is the leading organization working to broaden the public debate on drug policy and to promote realistic alternatives to the war on drugs based on science, compassion, health and human rights." That sounds about right to me.

Secretary of Labor: Washington, DC, representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. As former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she learned how to handle big business. Her successes as the District's House rep show she can work for the underdog.

National Security Advisor: New Jersey congressman Robert Menendez. His role as a House leader lends him depth that Condi Rice never had, and his experience with Homeland Security issues has made him an expert at knowing where we need our national security to focus. I firmly believe he can read all 90 pages of an NIE.

Press Secretary: Al Franken. I have to have one not-so serious entry here, and I toyed with making Martha Stewart the Interior Secretary, but I decided this was it. Actually, I think Franken could do a bang-up job: He's quick on his feet, he's brutally honest (much moreso than Micheal Moore), and he does well on camera. Plus, Stuart Smalley can give Howard Dean those little pep talks--"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like me."

Secretary of State: Retired General Wesley Clark. One of the things I have found most interesting about the current administration is the rift between State and Defense. I think the Whopper made a huge mistake putting two such completely opposed ideologues--Powell and Rumsfeld--in charge of Departments that need to get along. I think a Clark-Rockefeller team would be far stronger, and Clark could really help restore our credibility in the eyes of our NATO allies and the rest of the world, moreso than almost anyone else in this spot.

Surgeon General: American Heart Association's chief volunteer scientific and medical officer Augustus O. Grant. Calling him a "medical officer" makes him sound an awful lot like Dr. McCoy, but Grant has a solid, research-based (as opposed to ideology-based) public health background.

Trade Representative: Ambassador Carol Moseley-Braun. Braun is an experienced diplomat, which is one key part of being the trade rep, and she also recognizes the value of fair--as opposed to merely free--trade. She's too good to be left out of anyone's administration.

Secretary of Transportation: Delaware Senator Thomas Carper. Being on the Amtrak board isn't Carper's biggest accomplishment, but, combined with his fiscal discipline, connection to the National Governors' Association, and economics degree, I think he can do good things for the transportation sector. And I'm not talking about stuffing the g-strings of automakers and road builders.

Secretary of the Treasury: Retiring Washington Governor Gary Locke. Locke was my runner-up for Attorney General, and I felt he needed to be included here. No, he's not an economist, but his experience as a governor and his integrity lend him weight that cannot be denied.

Secretary of Veterans' Affairs: Illinois Representative Luis Gutierrez. His concern for civil rights and his work with the Veterans' Affairs committee show that he is not going to roll over and let our vets get screwed the way they have been under the current administration.

Vice President: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. It really only worked out this way because I'm doing it alphabetically; I wasn't trying to build the suspense. I had been leaning Edwards's way for a while, what with his good economic policy stuff (check my archives for June), but his penchant for fundraising scandals has turned me off. I mean, I liked the idea of the youngish-looking Edwards leading people to think about a 16-year administration. But Edwards isn't cutting it for me any more. So instead, former cabinet member Bill Richardson, who can carry those people who remember Clinton fondly and will also bring a whole lot of the southwest to the table. Dean can't win without New Mexico, which should remain a solid Blue State, but Richardson could bring Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado on board. That would make a Dean run unstoppable, even without Florida. I think we need to have a win-without-Florida strategy, and if Florida comes along, it'll just add to the rout we're all hoping for.