Posted by Brad Plumer,
8:17 PM
-
Al Gore's Mullet?
Is Al Gore growing a mullet? Or is it just a weird camera angle?
Posted by Dan,
7:53 PM
-
Some substance from Clark: Over at the University of Iowa, Law Professor Tung-Yin got a chance to have lunch with Wesley Clark after his speech and listen to the general give his informal opinions on a wide range of policy issues. Yin came away thoroughly impressed: "Given the breadth of questions he was getting, he showed remarkable command of factual matters and political issues. What I was most impressed with was his willingness to accept reality and to state clear opinions." And given some of the anecdotes offered up, I'm willing to agree:
* On social security, he seems to think that the solution to the anticipated deficit was to raise the cap on the Social Security taxes (i.e., currently, only the first $87,000 or so of income is subject to the payroll tax). He is against raising the retirement age, because that is the same as a cut in benefits. At the same time, he recognizes that the "lockbox" concept is nonsense, because the government has a "unified" budget.
* On terrorism, he favors focusing on the terrorists and funding, as opposed to countries. However, in probably the most controversial part of his speech, he singled out Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt as the "central fronts" -- Saudi Arabia because of "hatred spewing out of" the country, Pakistan because of its madrassas, and Egypt to a lesser extent.
* On whether U.S. soldiers should serve in U.N. missions led by non-Americans, he was skeptical. The U.N. was fine for observer or peacekeeping missions, but for missions with the serious potential for military conflict, the U.N. had no military command capability. He prefers a NATO command, because "we trust NATO commanders." But he emphasized the need for the U.N. imprimatur because around the rest of the world, what the U.N. says is law.
* He did realize that aspects of the U.N. were less than perfect. He refused to defend the fact that Syria is chairing the U.N. Disarmament Commission and that Libya is chairing the U.N. Humans Rights Commission, labeling those as "absurd."
Plenty of these positions are fairly bold, and probably won't come close to winning over, say, Dean supporters. Calling Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt "central fronts"? (By contrast, Dean's position on Saudi Arabia is that we need to become less reliant on oil so that Saudi Arabia will maybe, hopefully just go away). Anyways, my impression is that Clark hasn't yet developed a clear-cut political agenda, but that he's highly informed, willing to listen and interested in thinking things through. I probably won't agree with all of his stances, but he seems to stand out among candidates as an obvious leader who is capable, intelligent, open-minded, decisive, blah blah etc. etc.-- qualities and personality traits which are more important to me, personally, than any one particular policy issue.
Right now Clark's getting a lot of abuse for his two contradictory stances on the Iraq war-- there's "I would have voted for it" and also, as a nifty alternative, "I never would have voted for it." Fine. I'm sure The Nation will have a field day with that. But to me he looks like a candidate who gave serious thought to both sides of the Iraq debate-- an impression that looks more accurate in light of Yin's description-- and that gives me much more confidence than Dean's strident antiwar stance does. But then, I can't really speak for the general voting public...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
4:36 PM
-
Friday, September 19, 2003 Latest in the War on Terror
Bees are the latest weapons employed by the terrorists in attacking Americans! We must go to war with Syria to stop the bees! THE BEES! OH GOD THE BEES!
And while we're at it, let's use the Patriot Act to silence Justin Timberlake. He's aiding and abetting those Hollywood leftists with his money, and everyone knows Hollywood is with them. Except Mel Gibson. But he's not with us either. He's a papist, and damn it, only Protestants matter in this war.
/ramble
Posted by Jonathan,
5:55 PM
-
Is R&D a sham? Following Andrew Grossman's advice, I checked out Gregg Easterbrook's new blog and came across this little entry railing against price controls for pharmaceuticals:
Canadian and European Union price-controlled pharmaceuticals are taking a free ride on new-drug research and development that is funded by the high prices paid by American consumers and insurers. Essentially, the United States consumer is subsidizing drug development for the world of the world. Stop the high prices paid for U.S. drugs and the pace of new-drug development will slow.
The R&D line is used to justify drug prices that are hundreds of dollars higher in the US than they are in Canada. Cut the prices, the story goes, and R&D will vanish, and everyone will die of cancer and heart disease and malaria and maybe if you're not lucky smallpox. But is this really true?
The first counterargument is perhaps the most common, as articulated by Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Pharmaceutical companies already have ridiculous profit margins-- higher than any other major industry in the US. Sanders claims that only 20 to 30 cents of each prescription drug dollar is spent on research, and that price controls would cut into profit margins more severely than they would limit R&D spending. Joseph Mercola makes more or less the same point.
Fine. There's that. There's also point number two, which might be more interesting. This one comes from a friend who worked at a biomedical consulting firm, doing market analysis on just this subject. He claims that pharmaceutical R&D is overhyped. As far as he could tell, the bulk of research money is spent on lucrative but non-vital drugs like Propecia, Rogaine, Viagra... The most pressing R&D concerns are hair loss and impotence, not cancer or heart disease. Is that really worth having a nation of people that can't afford prescription drugs? Of course, the counter-counter argument is that if profits and R&D expenditures do go down, then even less money will be spent on the vital drugs, and corporations will place an even greater importance on Rogaine-like drugs. I don't really know how to get around that... but the R&D argument isn't nearly as straightforward as Easterbrook makes it out to be.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
5:34 PM
-
Thursday, September 18, 2003 Quite the little treasure trove: "US Implicated in Taliban Massacre." "Convicted Corporations Receive Perks Instead of Punishment." "Argentina Crisis Sparks Cooperative Growth." etc. etc. Take a peek at the Top 25 censored media stories of 2002-2003.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
8:01 PM
-
Rumble in the Jungle (of Brazil) Private property rights are under siege in Brazil. Since leftist President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva took office in January, farmland has been invaded by radical Marxist movements almost every 24 hours. Lula has turned a blind eye to farm invasions, Robert Mugabe style. Mugabe, a notorious African strongman who encouraged land invasions in Zimbabwe while declaring the “economy is the land” made good on his promise to redistribute his country’s farms. As a result, Zimbabwe’s economy, once among Africa’s strongest, is in freefall. Could this really happen in a democracy like Brazil?
Occupations have spread to Brazil’s cities. On July 18 some 4,000 people organized by the Marxist Movement of Workers Without a Roof, known as the “MTST” occupied land in São Paulo owned by Volkswagen. When squatters demanded title to the land to build new homes, one of Lula’s top judiciary appointees, Claudio Fonteneles, justified their acts by declaring that all private property must have a “social function” in order to be recognized by the government.
Members of the radical Landless Rural Workers Movement, known as the “MST”, have invaded and occupied three farms belonging to the US-based multinational Monsanto so far this year. The MST said that the actions were taken in protest at what it sees as the illegal growing of genetically modified crops.
This is a little sensational, but fine fodder for a Thursday afternoon.
Posted by T. Wood,
12:24 PM
-
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 Crazy numbers Just saw this from a new Quinnipiac University Poll: If Clinton jumps into the race for the White House, she gets 45 percent of Democratic voters, followed by 9 percent for Dean, 8 percent for Kerry, as Lieberman and Gephardt each get 6 percent. No other Democratic contender tops 4 percent, with 14 percent undecided. If Clinton stays out of the race, it’s a four-way tie: Dean and Lieberman each get 14 percent of Democratic voters, while Gephardt and Kerry each get 13 percent. No other Democrat tops 7 percent and undecided gets 21 percent.
On the one hand that's interesting, on the other the pollster is based out of....
Update: Quinnipiac is in the fine state of Connecticut. Save the sound! Or something like that.
Posted by Graham,
7:05 PM
-
Fuzzy Philanthropy: I've heard conservatives argue that opposition to taxes is not at all unchristian. In fact, it might even be compassionate. After all, if you roll back taxes, then wealthy folk have more money to give to charity. The effect is more or less the same, and this way people can have more leeway in supporting their favorite causes. Well, that seems innocent enough. But Lewis Cullman isn't so convinced that charity is always the most charitable thing to do:
The next time you read about a rich person donating $100 million to charity, you should be aware that this seemingly generous gift may never actually reach the institutions that need it. The chances are that the donation is being used to set up a private foundation. The gift will earn the donor a full deduction against income or estate taxes. But the little-understood trick of this form of philanthropy is that the $100 million that launched the foundation need never go to charity.
Read on for the full explanation and some possible solutions.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
6:22 PM
-
Clarkmania: Kos speculates that former Kerry advisor Chris Lehane may very well find a job on the Clark campaign sometime soon. Kos thinks that a massive Dean-Clark showdown is in the works, and "with Fabiani and Lehane in the mix, it won't be clean or amicable."
Meanwhile, Political Wire has a thorough roundup of Clark news and analysis. The biggest story, of course, is the rumor that Hillary Clinton might co-chair Clark's campaign. Which seems terribly unlikely (and might be nothing more than subtle-- and clever-- conservative propaganda), but I guess we'll see. I suppose Clark desperately needs to match Dean's ludicrous fundraising skills, and Hillary could help out in a big way... but it seems like a risky move from Clark's point of view.
Finally, Hesiod over at Counterspin lists and debunks the most popular anti-Clark charges, including the (apparently misguided) claim that Clark nearly started World War III during the Kosovo campaign. Hesiod is convincing, but it seems a bit nervewracking that he can already muster up so many tangible (and easily repeatable) attacks against the general. At least when Howard Dean lies and fumbles, it's about trivial stuff that no one can firmly grasp (although Gephardt's campaign is trying to change that... see here for Gep's new "Deanfacts.com"). Dean can squirm through all that. But it will be easy for Limbaugh to convince millions of listeners that Clark was singlehandedly responsible for Waco. Ugh.
So I know I've been pretty excited by ole' Wes Clark in the past, as displayed earlier on my blog , but after watching his candidate announcement speech this afternoon, Heintz and I have lost the appetite to jump. He speaks in short, generic catch phrases like Bush. The crowd rocked hard, but it seems that the nature of dudes is that intrigue wins them points- but now that the cats out of the bag, I'm less enthused by him. He'll look shabby in the debates, and I'm curious to see what his specific plans are. The caviat is that no dem will spend any enrgy attacking him, as they all want him on their ticket later. Still no one should be too worried, including Kerry.
Posted by janos,
2:31 PM
-
The DNC gets a blog They've got a fundraising meter, a la the Dean bat, with Carville and Begala on it. They've got a blogroll. And they've got a sense of humor -- it's called Kicking Ass. Check it out.
Posted by Graham,
12:14 PM
-
Morning News Roundup None of it comes from the Guardian, but hey... Is Clark on a collision course with the Presidency? He thinks so. "This is what my expertise, my leadership experience, my whole career has pointed and prepared me for," Clark said in an interview with CNN's "American Morning" on Wednesday. And to answer the naysayers... Questioned about how he can market himself and his campaign without a record on domestic issues, Clark said on Wednesday that he has "the same experience that everybody else does" when it comes to grappling with the issues as a citizen. At the WaPo Howard Kurtz's morning media notes focus on Clark for a bit, before turning to more pressing political matters: Gregg Easterbrook, noting that Dean now has his own ice cream flavor, Maple-Powered Howard, says that "other presidential candidates should demand their own Ben & Jerry's flavors! So, as a public service, here's what they would be:
"John Kerry: Very Kerry Irish-Jewish-Czech Melting Pot. Flavors from all over the world, blended together until indistinguishable.
"Joe Lieberman: Joe's Kosher Swirl. Corned beef flavored ice cream with real chunks of rye bread and ribbons of mustard. . . .
"Dennis Kucinich: Denny's Leftward Lurch. Bubble-gum pink flavor, with lots of nuts.
"John Edwards: John-Boy's Trial-Lawyer's Delight. Every carton contains a dead mouse; bite into it and Edwards will represent you in your suit against the dairy. . . .
"Dick Gephardt: Dick's Missouri Hometown Lemonade. When you've run for the nomination as many times as he has, the campaign takes on a lemon flavor. . . .
"Dick Cheney's Undisclosed Flavor.
"George W. Bush's Ice Cream of Mass Destruction. The label lists nuclear, biological, and chemical content, but inspectors have been unable to find these ingredients."
The New York Times covers how the primary campaigns are reacted to the delayed recall. They'll have to fight harder for coverage and cash in California, but the sentient all get that it's good for the state party out there.
Here's the latest on the Hutton Inquiry into WMD expert David Kelly's death: from the Independent.
And a Korean response to the WTO talks in Cancun. They're hurting. A lot on whether Korea should be considered an "advanced" or "developing" nation. They wish the latter but the WTO says the former. The concern is rice importation. Is the trade off industrial exports? Tarrifs? Regional blocs? Bilateral agreements? Is there an economist in the house?
Posted by Graham,
10:38 AM
-
What did Clark think about the war at the time? Interesting answers in this FAIR press release.
When I said this on Sunday in reference to the Israeli proposal to assasinate Arafat: Fortunately the United States will come out strongly against this plan.
The NYTimes tells us that yesterday the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have condemned the assasination and exile plans as well as the current round of violence being executed by both sides in Israel. (Our complaint was that the resolution did not specifically or "robustly" name Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa as terrorist organizations.) 11 members of the Council voted for the measure while Britain, Germany, and Bulgaria abstained.
Allow me to pose a question: In light of the diplomatic squabbles over Iraq (and occasionaly Israel), many Neoconservatives have argued that the United Nations is a "broken institution" which is outdated and incapable of dealing with current international security issues.
Is this the case? Is the UN broken and irrelevent? Or is it simply the case that the United Nations resoundingly disagrees with us in principle on how to deal with the current global dynamic?
Posted by Jordan,
1:25 AM
-
Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Prison rape: Over at FoxNews (via Instapundit, Wendy McElroy has a thoughtful piece on why we should be concerned about prison rape in the US. According to Human Rights Watch, anywhere from 250,000 to 600,000 prisoners-- mostly men-- are raped each year. And why should we care? To quote:
One reason: Prisoners are human beings. Approximately half of those imprisoned today are "non-violent." Many have been arrested on drug charges or for comparatively minor offenses, such as being behind in child support payments.
The young and "unhardened" prisoners are the most vulnerable to rape. Consider Rodney Hulin, who was arrested at 16 for setting fire to a dumpster. Hulin received an eight-year sentence. After being repeatedly raped and dismissed by prison authorities, he killed himself.
Noting that prison rape spreads HIV like wildfire, and that raped inmates may be more likely to commit crimes upon leaving prison, McElroy adds:
You should care about prison rape if only for one reason: Approximately 630,000 inmates were released from prison in 2002 and became the people beside whom you may now be living and working.
Also interesting is McElroy's claim that liberal feminists have tended to ignore prison rape, as it falls outside the usual view of rape as violence by men against women. As it turned out, the conservative Concerned Women of America lobbied for the Prison Rape Elimination Act, while NOW remained largely silent about the issue. It's an interesting point, though I'm not sure she can leap from this isolated fact to her larger and (potentially) more devastating criticism of feminist views on rape...
Posted by Brad Plumer,
8:17 PM
-
From Jesus to Hubris in One Sentence
``In the name of Jesus, we reach out our hand in faith and we command that storm to cease its forward motion to the north and to turn and to go out into the sea,'' Robertson prayed on ``The 700 Club.''
Posted by Graham,
5:46 PM
-
Out of the fog of war... ...comes changing public perspective. The poll is a week old, but it's still interesting, and I don't recall anybody posting on it. Public opinion on the war in Iraq has always been a bit confused (now's the time to trot out the numbers on how many people thing Saddam was behind 9/11). Nonetheless, people are starting to believe that the war in Iraq has not actually helped the war on terror. This comes despite the constant posturing to the contrary by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. Are people finally starting to get it?
Posted by Graham,
1:48 PM
-
CNN HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT WESLEY CLARK HAS DECIDED TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY. BYE-BYE KERRY, SORRY JANOS. IT'S NOT ON THEIR WEBSITE YET BUT SHOULD BE SHORTLY.
Posted by Steven Alec Thomas,
10:41 AM
-
What a gaff! From The Note USA Today has a brief write-up on Lieberman's door-to-door campaigning in New Hampshire this weekend (though we can't find it on the Web in a Boston Globe -like quandary). The blurb quotes only one door-opener, who "said she found the doorstep encounter helpful," but then went on to say "she favors [Dean]."
Man, they try to set up a photo op and it blows up in there face. I can't believe the Lieberman campaign accidentally set up a Dean promo.
The Boston Globe, which has, as a sort of home town paper, shown considerable favoritism towards John Kerry, has some more info on his Dean debate challenge. From the Gephardt camp: "It's an understandable statement on the part of a candidate who's trying to crawl his way back into the top tier," said Erik Smith, spokesman for Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri. "They're looking for gimmicks to try to revive his campaign. The Kerry campaign has clearly stalled."
The Editorial Board at the New York Times weighs in on the issue of debate management. The problem is that the debates have clearly been more candidate exhibition and less debate. With nine in already (soon to be ten, with a kick, if you listen to Charles Rangel) it's tough for anyone to go toe to toe on substantive policy issues. How to thin the crowd and create a good back and forth dialogue between the candidates, instead of the dog-and-pony show of Bush-bashing that we've been treated to thus far? I'm pretty sure the answer doesn't lie in the fake machismo of Kerry. Maybe it's in his tears? In any case, this whole thing is a mess, with the Kerry campaign saying that they're actually answering Dean's challenge (a dubious claim) and the Dean campaign laughing it off and lecturing the Kerry campaign on democracy. As a Democrat, I've got to say this little interaction is getting irritating. It's silly, especially when most people in this country can't reel off the names of too many of these candidates, I'd focus on the positives. If this is what the buzz is about this week, it doesn't help either one of them, especially if Clark gets in the race soon. Incidentally, John Edwards is 'announcing' his candidacy in nine hours. Guess where it's going to take place.
Posted by Timothy,
8:30 PM
-
"We Just Don't Know..."
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know.
Josh Marshall responds: "We just don't know. Presumably Mr. Cheney is basing the veracity of this statement on the same principle by which he doesn't know that I can't bench press a thousand pounds." Marshall also says:
Apparently the Vice-President of the United States can't help lying to and deceiving the people he was elected to serve... In Cheney's answer he reels off a series of allegations, most of which have either been positively discredited or remain wholly unsubstantiated. Even if each point were true -- which, for the most part, they aren't -- they are clearly intended to muddy the issue by tossing out a variety of points not directly related to the question of Iraqi government involvement in the 9/11 attacks....Even applying so low a standard as that by which we judge incidents with four-year-olds and cookie jars, Cheney's statement that "we just don't know" whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks is a lie. Why do 69% of Americans continue to believe that Iraq may have been involved in 9/11? Many reasons. But one of the most important is that their leaders keep lying to them.
Posted by Timothy,
8:20 PM
-
Court Puts Off California Recall Election Story here. Decision here (see page 17 for the Bush v. Gore reference).
"The purpose of this letter is to alert and remind all Members and staff that Senate rules and regulations strictly prohibit the use of Capitol and Senate space for any commercial or profit-making purpose.
"The use of Senate and Capitol space for the filming of K Street is strictly prohibited by the above referenced Senate policy.''
From a letter from the Rules and Ethics Committe. Sections reprinted in the Miami Herald online.
Huh. Because the only reason that MSNBC/General Electric or Fox/Newscorp or CBS/Time Warner would like to film in the Capitol is to bring us the unvarnished truth about how our nation's Capitol works. No "commercial or profit-making purpose" for these companies. No sir-ee.
I understand what the Senate is trying to avoid, but I think the ethics committee could be a little tighter in its language.
Posted by Clint,
9:52 AM
-
The Swedes vote No Sweden voted on Sunday 56% to 41% to keep the Swedish krone as their currency, instead of joining the Euro. The results were even worse for Euro proponents than they had looked they would be before Anna Lindhs death, indicating that her assassination did not help the yes crowd much.
This vote has big implications. Those who had favored adopting the Euro say that they won't push for another referendum for at least another 5 years. It was thought that if Sweden joined, Denmark would have it's hand more or less forced into joining. But now that hasn't happened the pressure for the politicians in Copenhagen to call for another vote are much less. The same could be said for England.
Photos from the surveillance camera of the department store where Lindh was stabbed have picked up someone who may have been the attacker. His grainy photo is on the cover of at least one of the major tabloids over here.
CORRECTION: I mean't stabbed, not shot.
Posted by Clint,
9:17 AM
-
Sunday, September 14, 2003 2 almost simultaneous posts.
I hope people watched this. I thought the loose, sketchy nature of the storyline was a little difficult to follow and maybe a little too autueristic to maintain a broad audience BUT overall I thought the real/fake concept was incredible.
How much of the footage was staged and scripted and how much wasn't? Clearly some of the central plot figures (Francisco, Maggie) were being portrayed by actors while others (James Carville and Mary Matlin) were real people offering scripted lines. But then there was Howard Dean, Don Nickles, and Rick Santorum. The Santorum and Nickles sequences were definitely part of the scripted plot but what about Dean?
The plot line involving him seemed to be fictional (Carville gets in trouble at his lobbying firm for doing campaign work for a Democrat) but at the same time the debate prep advice he got from Carville and Begala was very real. (Now we know the source of Dean's great Trent Lott/ Martin Luther King line at the last debate in Baltimore). The almost fictional show influenced real political events in almost real time. Mind-bending stuff.
Apparently they shoot the footage for each episode only days before it goes on air. This may account for the unstructured editing but it also allows K Street to be eerily current. It eviscerates the lines between documentary, reality TV, and drama. Which was it? I can't say.
If they can keep up this level of intrigue (its going to be difficult but hopefully they will) then this could easily become the best political show or film ever.
Posted by Jordan,
11:29 PM
-
K Street on HBO an interesting concept for a show, but man, I can't believe that practically the whole episode was devoted to Dean. It was either a half hour commercial devoted to Dean's presidential candidacy -- or a half hour commercial devoted to selling James Carville/Mary Matlin as consultants, I can't decide. Either way, i find it hard to believe the FEC won't have something to say about it. If it had any kind of an audience it was a big win for the Dean people on getting the appearance.
First the Sharon government floats the idea of expelling Arafat and now, apparently based on the HUGE success of that idea, the deputy PM has suggested that maybe they should just kill him instead.
I guess Israel is looking to become part of the long historic tradition of peace negotiations which began with political assassinations. Clearly this is an amazing plan.
Fortunately the United States will come out strongly against this plan. Unfortunately we have almost no credibility on the issue of assassinating heads of state since President Bush publicly issued orders to take out Saddam a few months ago. But you know, maybe Israel will listen to the UN or EU. Because they so often do.
It is doubtful that Israel would ever carry out such an irresponsible plan but what the hell are they thinking by even mentioning it? Does Sharon need to send the message that he really REALLY doesn't like Arafat?
Dear Prime Minister Sharon, I get it. Now, please resign and move to Texas. Shalom and thank you very much, Jordan
Posted by Jordan,
10:27 PM
-
Who is he kidding? Apperently, Jim Jordan, John F. Kerry's campaign manager, doesn't like that there are so many candidates running for the Democratic nomination. He sent a letter to the Dean campaign asking for a series of one-on-one debates. Of course they said no. Here's the letter that Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager sent in response.
The real question here is how pretentious and arrogant can Jim and the whole Kerry campaign be? As Dean has emerged over the summer as a major contender, many candidates have tried to paint themselves as the 'anti-Dean.' None have gone this far, or disrespected all of the other candidates so badly. New National and Iowa polls came out today. Kos has posted all the numbers. Here's a tip: Kerry isn't first OR second in either. Then there was also the Tennessee straw poll where the results were Dean, Gephardt, Edwards. And also Zogby's latest Iowa numbers that also show Dean leading and Gephardt placing second. Or Zogby's latest national numbers that give Dean the edge at 16% and Kerry and Lieberman in second and third seperated by only 1 point at 13% and 12%. What about the latest Maryland poll that shows Dean leading with a slight edge over Lieberman and Kerry following a distant third? How about Zogby's end of summer NH Poll? Those can't be favorites in Mr. Jordan's office.
In other words, this is not a two horse race between Dean and Kerry. And if it was a two horse race, at this point, it's unclear whether Kerry would have a legit claim to being one of those horses. But of course it's up to the people, not the campaign managers to cull out the frontrunners, and thankfully, Trippi put the the Kerry campaign in it's place -- with everyone else.
Posted by Graham,
8:28 PM
-
Dean on Israel Most of you probably have heard by now that for the last several days, slipping rivals Joe Lieberman and John Kerry have been mounting lackluster attacks on Howard Dean over his position on the Middle East. Most of their criticisms are, well, substance-free. Nathan Newman has the goods.
