Damn it, damn it, damn it! I can't believe I missed this.

STEWART: We're probably not going to go with 2000. We're going to go with 2002. We're going to stick with the year that it is now.

We're going live with all state coverage and all state results, and we're very excited about that. The people really need to get direct false numbers right away. We'll make our predictions probably as early as we can, and we hope to really give a full-on wrap up of everything that's happened.

Are you guys going live that night?

KURTZ: I don't know. Let me check with the producers.

STEWART: CNN?

KURTZ: It depends on what else is going on.

STEWART: I was going to say.

Jon Stewart for president.

When Coulter and her ilk consider attacking Dowd and and the New York Times and their antiwar stance, they really should consider the fact that Dowd knows firsthand what she's talking about.

Over a traditional lunch of mutton with the head on, kabsa and buttermilk at her restored mud house, Prince Saud's daughter, Princess Haifa, said she worries that Americans are clueless about Arabs. "Americans are watching people fight on — what do you call it?" she said, as her companions chimed in "Jerry Springer" and "Montel Williams." "What's so great about democracy? At least we're informed."

Oh my God. This is hilarious

Yesterday, the first international delegation of poll monitors assigned to observe an American election arrived in the US, operating under the aegis of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. And representatives from Russia and Albania were among them.

A Final Word on Wellstone

I meant to post this on Sunday.
Paul Wellstone’s legacy is an eloquent rebuke to the Democratic Party that now more than ever, inaction is not an option. It is not enough to give lip-service to social justice. Our leaders must follow up their grand statements with actions. These days our very own Tom Daschle and Joe Leiberman seem paralyzed by the doctrine of moderation that has taken hold of the Party over last ten years. Why do they remain so blind to what Wellstone saw so clearly?

The American people do want us to govern from the center, in a sense. But it is not the center the pundits and politicians in Washington talk about. Citizens want us to deal with issues that are at the center of their lives. They yearn for a politics that speaks to and includes them--affordable childcare, a good education for their children, health and retirement security, good jobs that will support their families, respect for the environment and human rights, clean elections and clean campaigns.

Appeasement will make losers out of the Democrats time and time again, but has more dire and far-reaching consequences for the rest of us. As we face an ill-conceived battle in the Middle East, a teetering economy at home, and growing hostility amongst our allies abroad, what matters most right now are the things that have, for too long, gone unsaid. In this month’s Harper’s Magazine Dick Armstrong outlines what looks to be the greatest danger currently facing our nation; our very own government hawks. The central ideology of this administration is one of absolute power described in detail in Dick Cheney’s Defense Planning Guidance, a pet project of his carried over from his days as Secretary of Defense for the Reagan administration.

The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain it’s overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful.

It is this point that has been missing from the national debate on preemption and unilateralism. When Paul Wellstone stood with the few in opposition of granting Bush the freedom to wage war in Iraq, he not only stood against giving away the right of Congress to declare war, he stood against a doctrine of global domination and might makes right. When the Democrats compromised they agreed to stand by and watch Nero fiddle as Rome burns.

Few in Washington seem to realize that as the leading economic and military power, in real terms, there is no greater threat to world peace and security than us. To invoke Iraq and even Al Qaeda as real threats to the United States is to mock our own arrogantly secure place in the world. And here we stand on the brink of war, a war that can bring no good to anyone least of all ourselves. Will we cease to be the shining example of freedom and comfort, and instead, become a grinning despot in a pinstripe suit? We think that, because we are a democracy, corrupt leaders cannot become entrenched and yet Cheney, Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz are holdovers from the Nixon administration. The Plan is not a new idea, but a long-held pet project that has simply been waiting to see the light of day. And in our fear and apathy we stand poised to allow it to become policy. People may shake their heads and empty their pockets, and columnists may furiously tap away the folly of such absolutism, but in the end it will be our own representatives that let this opportunity to oppose a policy of absolute power pass them by.

Throughout the last week much has been made of Paul Wellstone’s commitment to defending “the little guy.” That and his opposition to the Iraq resolution, make him out to be merely a fiery liberal in the midst of more level-headed Democrats. But to dismiss him thus is to underestimate what opposition to unilateralism signifies. It’s more than adherence to ones personal principles. It’s making the choice not to be the global dictator, to lead the free world with prudence and not menace. Democrats, Republicans, and pundits would do well to move past the issue of Iraq and terrorism and really examine how we want to enter the world of the twenty-first century.

This is just beautiful .

Hudson's new collection of short stories, "Dear Mr. President" (Knopf, $19), has made him a favorite of book critics, fellow writers and lots of readers. But the book, it seems, has had the opposite effect on the commander in chief...

"The letter began by thanking me for sending the book," Hudson said. "Also, I'm from Austin, Texas, and the president touched on the fact that I was a fellow Texan, congratulating me on my book. But he was setting me up for the one-two punch. Because he called the book unpatriotic and ridiculous and just plain bad writing. Beyond that, I've been instructed not to talk about the contents of the letter for the time being."

That's not all. Hudson says FBI agents have been hanging around at his recent book readings, and the book's website (Gabehudson.com) is apparently being monitored by the government.

"We have a [website] tracker," he said. "It tells us the percentage of hits coming from different places, from around the world. From universities. From the military. From different media sources. And from the government. The government's percentage is surprisingly high."

Blogger has been tempermental and I've been too busy to tear my hair out over it. Just a reminder that The Daily Show is broadcasting from Washington D.C. this week. Pat Buchanan is on tonight. I'm not sure what to make of that. One can't imagine the Stewart is all that comfortable with sitting so close to such an outspoken Hitler-apologist. Still one has to admire his bravery. If you missed Monday night's show John Edwards was the guest. He's more likable than I thought.

For more election reading check out Hertzberg in this week's New Yorker.

Josh Marshall. has some great words too.

For every Democrat -- probably as much for those who didn't share his politics as for those who did -- Wellstone was a special treasure: a sort of genuinely progressive, utterly engaged and sincere politician who somehow captured what was essential in the aspirations of his party, even if supported policies that others didn't. ("I'm from the Democratic party-wing of the Democratic party," he got fond of saying in the late 1990s ...) One thinks of his vote against welfare reform in 1996, on the eve of his first run for re-election. Whatever you think of the merits of that vote -- and history has been kinder to the supporters of the bill than the opponents, on balance -- no other Senate Democrat who was up for re-election that year had the nerve to make the vote that he did -- though many of them thought the way that he did. He did something very similar this year on Iraq. And in recent days it seemed conviction was making for good politics.

This just puts it beautifully.

I've spent the last hour trying to find a way to fill this space. There are few times in my life where I am rendered speechless, and this is one of them.

My heart is heavy, not just for Wellstone, or his family, but for our nation. Hate him or love him, Wellstone was the conscience of the Senate. At a time when Senators from both parties use "morality" to grandstand on pet issues, Wellstone was unapologetic in his compassion, was unabashedly progressive, and true to his ideals in the face of intense political pressures. His opponents accused him of having a short list of accomplishments, but that's because he wouldn't compromise on his ideals. Perhaps that made him weak as a politician, but as a human being he had few parallels.

I'm really don't know what to .

Wednesday, October 23, 2002

This looks promising. I wish something would pan out.

What Is a Liberal?

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Dowd 100; Bushies 0.

"I am the chairman of your Defense Policy Board," an amused Richard Perle replied. "I am an adviser to Rumsfeld, a friend of Wolfowitz's and a thorn in Powell's medals. Je suis un gourmand, Monsieur le President. I have always dreamed of opening a chain of fast-food soufflé shops based on a machine that would automatically separate eggs, beat the yolks and combine them with hot milk and sugar, add the desired flavorings, whip the whites until stiff, fold them into the mixture and bake in individual pots without human intervention. Then conveyor belts would bring the glass-enclosed ovens to the table and patrons would get to see their meals rise. I've never found investors smart enough to realize the dazzling ingenuity of the Perle Soufflé Doctrine. Meanwhile, I'm killing time trying to get your foreign policy to rise. I'm known as the Prince of Darkness."

Moveon.org gets some publicity.

MoveOnPAC.org, an Internet site, raised more than $1 million this week for four members of Congress that the group calls "heroes."

The biggest recipient is Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who hauled in nearly $600,000 after the MoveOn Web site started soliciting donations on Monday, said Wes Boyd, who co-founded the San Francisco-based site and serves as treasurer of its political action committee.

Democratic Rep Rush Holt of New Jersey received more than $170,000, Boyd said, while Reps. Rick Larsen and Jay Inslee of Washington state each received more than $150,000.

Question: Given this story, how bad can it be if the Democrats officially become the anti-war party? I don't believe it's going to happen, but it seems to me that this war can only go badly, and at the risk of politicizing the war, it should be pretty good for Democrats to ratchet up their opposition. Of course this is all assuming that logic rules here, which it sadly does not.

Oh, it gets better.

Administration officials say that although Iraq probably does not yet have nuclear weapons, it poses a more serious threat to its region because its record of using chemical weapons against its enemies and of invading two neighboring countries in the past.

Whereas North Korea is described by many experts as wanting weapons to deter an invasion, Iraq is feared generally as a nation willing to use its weapons to bully others. This concern is what the administration says justifies its policy of pre-emptive action against Baghdad.

Let's go back to the whole you-are-either-with-us-or-you-are-with-the-terrorists rhetoric. Take Pakistan for example...

You gotta love the spin though.

The White House said tonight that it would not discuss Pakistan's role or any other intelligence information. Nor would senior administration officials who briefed reporters today discuss exactly what intelligence they showed to North Korean officials two weeks ago, prompting the North's defiant declaration that it had secretly started a program to enrich uranium in violation of its past commitments.

Hypocrisy watch: Fight the wars you know you can win. It's better to be wrong but victorious than to be wrong and lose.

Diplomacy is the tack most likely to work with North Korea, said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who has pushed for such an approach toward Iraq. "It's the same approach you need to take on North Korea," he said. "You can't bluster on it alone."

The different approaches to Iraq and North Korea also forced the administration to explain why it was using dramatically different responses to two countries accused of developing weapons of mass destruction.

Krugman scores yet another one for the good guys.

When Ronald Reagan cut taxes on rich people, he didn't deny that that was what he was doing. You could agree or disagree with the supply-side economic theory he used to justify his actions, but he didn't pretend that he was increasing the progressivity of the tax system.

The strategy used to sell the Bush tax cut was simply to deny the facts — and to lash out at anyone who tried to point them out. And it's a strategy that, having worked there, is now being applied across the board.

Is is finally dawning on people just how out of touch they are over in Washington?

"America speaks with one voice," says President Bush.
In Washington, Bush, having been empowered by both houses of Congress to use force, seems to face very little opposition on Iraq.

On the streets of America, nothing could be further from the truth.

Across the nation, in city after city, ABCNEWS found voices of opposition, and many of them were from military towns.

This is nothing new, but it speaks to the frustration of the press. Let's nickname Bush the Propaganda President. Reading this article in conjunction with Dean's is pretty chilling.

Even Mr. Fleischer's Democratic predecessors said the strategy of limiting information to the press was effective. While he said he was more accommodating to reporters, Michael D. McCurry, a press secretary to President Bill Clinton, said he believed Mr. Fleischer may have found a more successful approach: "To be very, very disciplined and treat the press like caged animals and only feed them on a regular schedule."

Scary stuff on Condo. This story is pretty revealing, particularly her years at Stanford. Pick up the print issue if you can.

Rice is deeply reluctant to advocate for black people or for women generally, but she has advocated for specific black people and women.

Her self-absorption is astonishing.