Hi Diddle Diddle, Right up the Middle

Let's hope the California Dems remember that if we don't hang together, we'll surely hang separately. By staying out of the recall race, they refuse to legimatize it. We did nothing wrong, and we shouldn't act like we did.

That's why, if the Al Gore rumors somehow turned out to be true, I would skip for joy.

And if he said he was choosing Joe Lieberman as his running mate, I would dance a little jig.

Because, you see, we did nothing wrong.

I don't think much of Lieberman as a campaigner. I believe I referred to him, quite recently, as a putz.

But he's OUR putz. Compared to that criminal, Cheney, Lieberman is just fine.

Think about it. Why in HELL are we looking for a candidate who can do better than Gore? I don't see anyone in this field who seems likely to even to do half as well.

Howard Dean, god love him, has the foreign policy expertise of a prairie dog. Or maybe a Gambian pouched rat.

John Kerry looks like he's got a fireplace poker stuffed up his rear end.

My guy, Graham, takes 128 seconds to get to the point.

John Edwards is a little light--like about 8 years--in experience.

Dick Gephardt really IS a putz as a campaigner.

Carol Mosely Braun's latest accomplishment was getting BEAT. As an Incumbent.

Al Sharpton is a nice guy, but he's a loudmouthed bloward who endorsed Al D'Amato, if you can believe it.

What--in the name of all that is holy--have we been thinking of?

Gore-Lieberman took us to 4th and inches. They got robbed by the Zebras. Why wouldn't we run that same play again, right up Bush's nose?

Gore and Lieberman did nothing wrong. Why agree with those who say otherwise?

WHO KNOWS HOW TO CAMPAIGN?

As Molly Ivins said in her run-down of the candidates, one of Graham's strengths is that he is a Southern poliitician "so he knows how to campaign."

But current polls make you wonder. Although the numbers are too small to mean anything statistically, both CNN and Quinnipiac show a decline in Graham's support numbers during the past two weeks--two weeks during which the Fla. Dem has received more exposure than at any time during his campaign.

Could be that criticizing the commander-in-chief during wartime is bad for your political health. Graham's attacks have hurt Bush, but he may have sacrificed his body to make them.

On the hand, it simply has to be done. Bush can't be defeated unless his credibility as commander-in-chief is eroded. The sad truth is, he's good at lying, or to use Maureen Dowd's nicely turned phrase, the Orwellian fan-dance. He's gonna wag the dog until Hell won't have it.

Dowd devoted an entire column to Bush's questionable Iraq policy. James Carville the ex-marine, says more laconically:

"They lied to get us in, and they have no plan to get us out."

The problem for Graham is that Dean owns the Iraq issue.

In the same two-week period, Dean's standing has nearly doubled, seemingly drawing away votes from both Kerry and Graham.

I believe this is because of the media tongue-bath Dean has been getting on the strength of his fundraising prowess. Graham's weak fundraising keeps him out of the top tier, not so much because he doesn't have enough money to campaign--he does--but because national political writers are hypnotized by the money primary.

Graham is a horse that runs the final portion, but he's going to have to get a LITTLE closer before he makes his stretch bid.

The New England politicians--Dean, Kerry and Lieberman--have simply never faced an Atwater/Rove-style campaign in their own races. And when they did face touch competition, it came in the form of liberal maverick Republicans like Weicker and Weld. Dean's last race was made close by third-party erosion on his left flank.

I don't think we have to worry about Liberal Republicans in 2004. I think we have to worry about that creeping Jesus Ralph Reed and the friggin' Confederate battle flag.

As Gore's running mate, Lieberman faced Cheney in a debate--and lost. As Gore's attack dog, he hit like a girl. I respect Lieberman as a senator. He is a smart, ethical and an independent thinker. But as a campaigner, he is a putz.

Gephardt has coasted to reelection for at least 20 years. He faced tough competition in other people's race, and lost. We should have a Democratic speaker by now. I blame Gephardt.

Kucinich's big applause lines are about losing an election on principle. Sorry, but the way things are going, I'd rather have a candidate who CHEATED and won.

Like Gephardt, Braun is running for president on the strength of having failed at lower offices. She has the distinction of losing as an incumbent senator.

Sharpton has never run anything except his mouth.

In contrast to the entire field, Graham has won two very completive statewide races in a huge state, including one in which he unseated incumbent Senator Paula Hawkins. He won his first legislative contest in 1966, when first-term senator John Edwards was 13. To be sure, Edwards also won a fiercely competitive race, but that makes him only 1 for 1.

Graham is 9 for 9.

Low expectations can help Graham. But they could get too low.

Saturday 7/26/2003 7:33:46 PM

GEPHARDT: WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE VOTERS?

The clipping service weasels at the Republican National Committee figure they've got the dirt on Dick Gephardt. He's a liberal. A has-been. A flip-flopper.

The early public oppo on Gephardt indicates the Reps would like see a Gephardt campaign stillborn for at least three reasons. First, he might turn Missouri (Bush, 50, Gore 47, Nader 2) from red to blue, which would put them 11 votes in the hole right off the bat. Second, his monomaniacal devotion to a sweeping Health Insurance bill could put them in mind of George Bush's single-minded ride to the White House on his tax cut horse. Third, they really don't have much more than cream-puff attacks against they guy. Gephardt was the candidate Lee Atwater (R-Hell) least wanted to face in 1988.

Health insurance matters plenty, esp. to high-propensity voters born before 1965. But tying his proposal to a roll-back in the Bush tax cut was a mistake. Why be responsible? If Bush can spend a billion a week off the books to play Army men in Iraq, why in hell can't the Dems promise universal health insurance and free Bubble-Up? Anyway, as I get older, I feel less concerned about passing deficits onto future generations. Let 'em get up off their lazy Vegan asses and work.

But Dick Gephardt is a moral guy who can't lie with the fluency of a campaign manager. The former House leader really is an eagle scout, just like Silicon Valley's incorruptible and political unbeatable D.A. Louis Bergna, who was elected back during the Truman Administration and served non-stop up into the dawn of the Joe Trippi era until retiring in 1982.

Dirt, as in screwing around on his ever-lovin' wife or stealing money, is not to be found on Gephardt, and the voters could turn to him to actually get some of that famous tone-changing in Washington promised but hardly delivered upon by the jackals of the GOP.

Like Graham, Gephardt is a hawk on Defense, an advantage in the General Election. I prefer Graham, who has never lost an election, to Gephardt, who seems to have lost 435 of them repeatedly.

However, Mark Shields, a Gephardt fan, wrote a spirited and nearly convincing piece about the never-was speaker's attempts to retake the House.

I say only nearly convincing because Gephardt, like the rest of the congressional leadership of the 1990s, thought he was smarter than Bill Clinton and helped kick away the majority in 1994.

As we all know now, or should know, the only thing smarter than Bill Clinton is a treeful of owls.

Say what you will about Tom Delay, he's the president's pezzo da novanta when the going gets tough. Delay gave the Dems a million-dollar education in party loyalty, shoved up Dick Gephardt's butt a nickel at a time. Winning the presidency is the best revenge, but, for all this candidate's advantages, I don't think he packs the gear.

This year, both the primary and general election voters are looking for a tough guy. Stan Musial, Mark McGwire and Dick Gephardt--all St. Louis nice guys. The Dems, and the country, want a Ty Cobb or Pete Rose, sliding in spikes high.

The game show line up this morning features Paul Wolfowitz vs. the three most outspoken Democrats in the Senate, Graham, Durbin and Levin.

Meet the Press in particular is obviously not ignoring the 911 report:

Wolfowitz, Graham, Shelby, Goss, Pelosi

I said before, and I'll say again, the distraction value of Rumsfeld's gross-out photos is limited.
9/11 is the biggest story of the century, and it matters to the voters.

Oh, yeah. Big-time.

TEXT OF GEORGE SOROS AD

Billionaire George Soros breaks full-page ads this weekend in the NYT, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Houston Chronicle. The campaign is called 'WE DESERVE THE TRUTH' and carries a $112K pricetag (so far).

Story

Request a .pdf version via email

WHEN
THE NATION
GOES TO WAR,
THE PEOPLE
DESERVE THE
TRUTH

American men and women risked and gave their lives for a war based on fighting an imminent threat to
homeland security. The case for this war — made unequivocally by President Bush and members of his
administration — rested on intelligence that has been exposed as exaggerated or even false.



“Simply stated, there is no doubt that
Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing
them to use against our friends, against
our allies, and against us.”
—Vice President Dick Cheney,
Speech to VFW National Convention,
August 26, 2002

“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting
its nuclear weapons program.”
—President George W. Bush,
Cincinnati, Ohio,
October 7, 2002

“Our intelligence officials estimate that
Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce
as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard
and VX nerve agent.”
—President George W. Bush,
The State of the Union Address,
January 28, 2003

“The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa.”
—President George W. Bush,
The State of the Union Address,
January 28, 2003

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined
to keep his weapons of mass destruction,
is determined to make more.”
—Secretary of State Colin Powell,
Remarks to the United Nations Security Council,
February 5, 2003

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field
commanders to use chemical weapons —
the very weapons the dictator tells us he
does not have.”
—President George W. Bush,
Weekly Radio Address,
February 8, 2003

“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted
nuclear weapons.”
—Vice President Dick Cheney,
NBC’s “Meet the Press,”
March 16, 2003

“Intelligence gathered by this and other
governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq
regime continues to possess and conceal some
of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
—President George W. Bush,
Address to the Nation,
March 17, 2003

“We know where they are. They are in the
area around Tikrit and Baghdad.”
—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Discussing WMD on ABC’s “This Week”
with George Stephanopoulos,
March 30, 2003

“We are learning more as we interrogate
or have discussions with Iraqi scientists
and people within the Iraqi structure, that
perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he
dispersed some. And so we will find them.”
—President George W. Bush,
Interview by Tom Brokaw, NBC,
April 24, 2003

“I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the
weapons program of Saddam Hussein —
because he had a weapons program.”
—President George W. Bush,
Oval Office Remarks,
May 6, 2003

“The larger point is, and the fundamental
question is, did Saddam Hussein have
a weapons program? And the answer is,
absolutely. And we gave him a chance
to allow the inspectors in, and he
wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a
reasonable request, we decided to remove him
from power...”
— President George W. Bush
Oval Office Remarks,
July 14, 2003

-------------------------------------------------
“These 16 words should never have been
included in the text written for the
President.”
—Statement of CIA Director George Tenet,
On President Bush’s State of the Union Address,
July 11, 2003

“Mr. President, to conclude, we have to
date found no evidence that Iraq has
revived its nuclear weapon program
since the elimination of the program in
the 1990s.”
—International Atomic Energy
Agency Director Mohammed ElBaradei,
Presentation to the UN Security Council,
January 27, 2003

“The President’s assertion that the
war began because Iraq did not admit
inspectors appeared to contradict
the events leading up to war this
spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted
the inspectors and Bush had opposed
extending their work because he did
not believe them effective.”
—Washington Post, July 15, 2003



Sponsored by Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman and George Soros
and the Open Society Policy Center, 1120 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036
Over the last year, the administration has made a series of statements
that have now been called into question by the facts.
Quotations compiled from various public sources including The New York Review of Books, counterpunch.org, billmon.org, and others.

Friday 7/25/2003 9:17:42 PM

DEAN: WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE VOTERS?

As far as the primary contest goes, early polls don't mean much, but if they show anything at all, they show Dr. Howard Dean moving up with a bullet.

Dean is not George Bush. And, according to Zogby, that may be enough, even if the election were held today, when the pollster has Bush losing to a generic unnamed Democrat by a single point. Yesterday's Ipsos-Reid Cook Political Report poll has its "Someone Else" number higher than it's been all year, only five points away from Bush. So there's definitely room for the UN-Bush in this race

Sure, none of the other Democrats is George Bush either, but Dean is REALLY not George Bush. Not withstanding pious lies to the contrary, Bush is as poll-driven and consultant-molded as any candidate in any party has ever been. Even the poor, stupid, ignorant electorate is slowly catching wise.

Dean is different. Like John McCain, he's not afraid to speak off the cuff. And he's got the brains to cash almost any checks he writes with that smart New York mouth of his. Dean's independence has already gained him an usual backer: maverick Republican Lowell Weicker. The ability to draw voters who are neither Democrats nor Republicans will be significant in not only the NH primary but in the November Super Lotto.

As an M.D., Dean is someone people can look up to, while at the same time he has very little of the John Kerry tendence to look back down on them. And of course any Democratic nominee wil grow immensely in stature after the convention.

Despite Karl Rove's noisily licking of his chops at the prospect of a Dean candidacy, Dean may be tough to put a glove on. He has no voting record to pick apart. And while the Rove crew can try sneer at Vermont as a state too small to produce a president, this tactic was tried with only limited success against both Carter and Clinton.

Dean is very weak in the foreign policy and commander-in-chief department. This is a threshold he will somehow have to get over, because he hasn't done so yet. But if the Bush disasters continue, simply not being Bush may be enough. Bush beat Gore not by convincing voters that he, Bush, would make the better president, but by making it appear that Gore--styled by Bush as a world-famous liar--would make the worse.

If Dean, the anti-Bush, can keep up a similar barrage of criticism and ridicule against the thin-skinned W., he may be able to establish his foreign policy credentials by default. With a strong vice-presidential pick--and surrounded by ex-Clinton policy advisors--Dean might make the case as strongly as any that Bush's only two major policy initiatives have endangered us around the world and bankrupt us at home.

Polling Report

Saturday 7/26/2003 10:42:26 AM

THE NEXT MCGOVERN?

If I were running for president, I would WANT to be the next McGovern. He got the nomination, right? And that is what you might call a sine qua non.

And Bob Graham, not Howard Dean, looks like the next George McGovern to me.

The Washington Post's Miami guy Manuel Roig-Franzia profiles Bob Graham today, dutifully pointing out that he's the boss's nephew and questioning his campaign skills while observing nonetheless that Graham has never lost an election.

The print scribes are mostly editing Bob Graham out of the 9/11 stories he would dominate if he were not an announced candidate, but television, which lives or dies by its newsmakers, has no such luxury. As a result, Graham has been everywhere, including an appearance on Bill Maher's HBO Show during which the host was uncharacteristically respectful, realizing, I suppose, that 3,000 dead Americans is no laughing matter.

Graham received thunderous applause from the live audience, many of whom no doubt were seeing him for the first time.

Graham is kind, avuncular, slow and methodical in making his points--and more than just a bit boring. The same was true of former college professor George McGovern who nevertheless wound up electrifying the Democratic primaries in 1972.

Expectations for Graham, as for McGovern, are low. And that, of course, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Despite what you young folks may have heard, McGovern LOST the NH Primary to Ed Muskie. While there is a danger that Graham's putrid poll numbers and lackluster fundraising may force him from the race, I doubt it.

Read the Post profile and see if this guy sounds like a quitter to you.

Saturday 7/26/2003 7:39:05 AM

AN $18 MILLION CAMPAIGN

The Dems say they can raise $20 million to defeat the recall. If Davis is wise, he'll keep $2 million in reserve to hire signature-gathering winos just in case he does get recalled.

The new GOP (that would be the one that established a new tone in Washington) has shown that it will do anything to win, even after the election is over. During the Clinton impeachment and in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and now in California, the dominant Bush-Delay wing has shown that it is comfortable with smearing decorated war veterans, intimidating election officials, reapportioningl legislative districts as frequently as necessary to gain partisan advantage, arresting their political opponents, and, of course, using Big Tobacco money to hire winos, in the name of winning, or reversing, elections.

So the Dems, to stay competitive in California, need a wino signature-gathering fund. Because that's all it takes to get a recall election on the ballot. If you know how to sit next to a freeway exit with your dog and a "will work for food" sign, you know how to gather signatures for a recall election. And, like work as a census-taker or a department store Santa, there is little risk of winding up with a full-time job that you have to go to every day. It's a marriage made in heaven: well-heeled right-wing drool cases and hard-working signature-gatherers who need to put a little cash away for the daily dose of Sweet Lucy.

Today, gubnatorial hopeful Steve Lopez seems almost to come out for The Terminator, but that's because he knows he can wipe the street with the big Austrian bum. To be sure, Lopez will be outspent $30 million to zero, but, as he says, he has a Spanish surname and knows where to get some free media.

I plan to vote NO on the recall and YES on Lopez, which I think will cause my ballot to be thrown out. It'll be worth it, though, if Lopez wins and keeps his pledge to hold the victory party at Rich's Wild Kingdom in San Jose.

The signature-gathering winos have promised to be there.

UDAY AND QUSAY STILL DEAD

Buzzflash editorializes that the gory display of Iraqi bodies torn apart by wire-guided missiles was intended as much to reassure Americans about Bush as to reassure Iraqis about the death of those wacky Hussein boys.

I think there's more truth than poetry in this Buzzflash observation. But I don't think the distraction will work. The NYT website uploaded nearly 6 megabytes worth of .pdf files containing the entire report and linked it below an AP pic of Graham slugged with this quote:

"The attacks of Sept. 11 could have been prevented if the right combination of skill, cooperation, creativity and some good luck had been brought to task," said Senator Bob Graham, co-chairman of the inquiry.

I gotta believe lots of people will be working this story long after the tabloid shock value of Rumsfeld's Geneva Convention-flouting photos has worn off.

Graham has done well with the New York scribes--Jimmy Breslin endorsed him for president--and no wonder. So, if he can make it there...can he make it anywhere? Graham may be destined to play the nose guard while somebody else gets to be the quarterback. One thing for certain: Like many a Florida State lineman, Bob Graham isn't going to be easily brushed aside.

WHY I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE RECALL

It's always easier to get a "No" vote.

The California GOP recognizes that Darrell Issa--who has more arrests without conviction than a mafia button-man--is, to quote a California Democrat, " a bum."

So a lot of Republican heavyweights are running their mouths in favor of Arnold, but his everlovin' wife is against it, which will more heavily on him than anything he lifts in the gym. Maria probably suspects what the tabloid-reading public will soon know if The Terminator decides to go.

Besides, after sinking $1.7 million of his own iron men into the race, do you think Issa will be easily persuaded to take a powder? I don't.

The issue becomes not Davis, but the recall itself. Is this a good precedent? When any rich bum with a rap sheet can go turn government upside down by hiring enough winos to circulate petitions? There are lots of rich LEFT-wing bums in this state too, you know.

A GOP governor could easily be next--maybe even the one voters might pick to finish Davis's term.

The recall is a piss-poor idea, and most of the state's editorial writers will conclude the same.

WHO CAN BEAT HIM?

Hillary Clinton is within striking distance of beating George Bush, according to a Qunnipiac University Poll.

Although AP headlined the horserace among the Dems--based on only 372 interviews--the real news is in the head-to-head matchup between Clinton and Bush. Although none of the Dems, including Clinton, are as close as an unnamed generic Democrat in numerous recent polls, you have to say she is doing okay for somebody who swears to god she's not running.

The poll of 1,055 registered voters was taken July 17-22, including 372 Democrats. The error margin for the overall sample was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The pointy-headed intellectuals who conducted the poll claim a five percent margin of error for the Democratic numbers, but I think they are giving themselves all the best of it, given the small sample and the tightly bunched results.

Even at five percent, the results could mean only a one point gap between Lieberman, the leader and Dean, the last of the top tier.

The results show a sizeable bump for Hillary vs other Dems. Previous Quinnipiac polls during the last six months showed her with pluralities of 40%, 37% and 42%. Now, discarding the undecideds, she beats the entire Democratic field combined.

Dems vs. each other (without Hillary)

Holy Joe: 21%
Dickie G: 16%
Big John: 13%
Ho-Ho: 10%

Dems vs each other

Hillary R-C: 48%
Holy Joe: 11%
Rest of the field: NOWHERE

Dems vs. Bush

Clinton -7%
Kerry, Gephardt, Liberman, -10%
Dean -16%

Two polls I'd like to see:

Graham vs. Bush in Fla (Now, not when Graham still had the hospital plastic band around his wrist and Bush was landing on carriers).

Gore-Clinton vs. Bush-Cheney. (Maybe then we'd get wise to ourselves and try to win this thing).

YOU CAN'T SPIN BODY BAGS

Three more die in Iraq today. While Dems may agree that Bush is both venal and incompetent, it is the latter quality--getting our guys killed--that will hurt Bush at the polls.

There are only two possible explanations for Bush's state of the union message. 1). He lied, or 2). He didn't know any better.

The election turns on which party offers the least amount of pain. Incumbent iars--Nixon, Clinton--get reelected because voters see them as experts in a necessarily dirty game. Incompetents--Ford, Carter, Bush Sr.--lose because voters don't feel safe with them as president.

Clinton's crocodile tears for poor, stupid George were well-timed. The weekly casualty figures speak for themselves. True, our dead and wounded soldiers have spared Iraqis from living under Hussein.

But American voters want to know, what's in it for us?

YOU CAN'T SPIN BODY BAGS

Three more die in Iraq today. While Dems may agree that Bush is both venal and incompetent, it is the latter quality--getting our guys killed--that will hurt Bush at the polls.

There are only two possible explanations for Bush's state of the union message. 1). He lied. and 2). He didn't know any better.

The election turns on which party offers the least amount of pain. Incumbent iars--Nixon, Clinton--get reelected because voters see them as experts in a necessarily dirty game. Incompetents--Ford, Carter, Bush Sr.--lose because voters don't feel safe with them as president.

Clinton's crocodile tears for poor, stupid George were well-timed. The weekly casualty figures speak for themselves. True, our dead and wounded soldiers have spared Iraqis from living under Hussein.

But American voters want to know, what's in it for us?

YOU CAN'T SPIN BODY BAGS

Three more diein Iraq today. While Dems may agree that Bush is both venal and incompetent, it is the latter quality--getting our guys killed--that will hurt Bush at the polls.

There are only two possible explanations for Bush's state of the union message. 1). He lied. and 2). He didn't know any better.

The election turns on which party offers the least amount of pain. Incumbent iars--Nixon, Clinton--get reelected because voters see them as experts in a necessarily dirty game. Incompetents--Ford, Carter, Bush Sr.--lose because voters don't feel safe with them as president.

Clinton's crocodile tears for poor, stupid George were well-timed. The weekly casualty figures speak for themselves. True, our dead and wounded soldiers have spared Iraqis from living under Hussein.

But American voters want to know, what's in it for us?

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS--GET THEM A NEW COMMANDER IN CHIEF

Paul Wolfowitz, on the Newshour, said he thinks the Iraqis like us. How out of touch is that? Two more of our guys got shot dead today--after the wondrous "tipping point."

We convince some Iraqi weasel to rat out the sons--for 30 million smackeroos--and call it a famous victory. How much did the doggies get who went up the stairs after Uday? $868 a month? And can we afford a $15 million bounty on the head of every rotten S.O.B. in Iraq--especially after Bremer admitted that the killing of G.I.s is NOT orchestrated by Hussein or any member of his famiy? Of course, Wolfowitz--who lives in a dream world--contradicted Bremer today.

This Sunday, Kool Kid Joe Klein
got it right: Bush (and all the little Bushies) lie to themselves. Nice line from Klein on the carrier landing visual: Bush "may have even thought he was a flyboy."

Wolfowitz, who as far I know never even served in the Boy Scouts, proves with his mouth the colossal arrogance of entrusting the lives of American servicemen to guys who've never heard a gun go off.

Clinton is right. The Dems need to be patriots--and let the Bush White House choke on its own illusions.

WINNING THE PEACE

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, running for the Democratic presidential nomination, countered [Bush's boasting about the killing of Saddam's sons] that "now is not the time for victory laps."

"The fighting continues in Iraq and President Bush needs to be straight with the American people about how we are going to win the peace. The Bush administration needs to put aside its pride and go to the U.N. so that we can share the burden," Kerry said.

This is exactly the right tone. Voters want to know how we are going to get out of this mess, not how we got in. At the heart of Clinton's magnanimous remarks to Bush is a warning:

"The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now."

Bush will get sort of a pass on the two G.I.s killed today--but more casualties are to come. The Pentagon's juvenile deck of cards won't end the killing even if they manage to play 52-card pickup. Bitterness and opposition of the U.S. occupation reaches far beyond the small ranks of the formerly privileged Bathists.

By the way, I use the word "magnanimous" to describe Clinton advisedly. My dictionary says it means "large in spirit, raised above all that is mean or petty." The opposite is to be found in a pair of graceless GOP shit-heels with more money than good taste.

FINALLY. AN ANALOGY THAT MAKES SENSE--HILLARY:RFK

Speaking of low-lifes, Dick Morris in the Murdock-owned Post says Hillary Clinton, like RFK before her, could still jump in the race. And, his certified toe-sucking low-life credentials notwithstanding, Morris is right, too.

Howard Dean's candidacy has been compared to Eugene McCarthy's before. This would the other shoe dropping with a helluva thud. Hillary would run the table in the primaries like Minnesota Fats.

If we are going to run a northern liberal--such as Kerry, who is the most liberal candidate in the race save Kucinich--why not run one who can excite crowds, raise money, split GOP tickets like a lumberjack, and make history. She would give us, at the very least, a wild ride.

If we want to win, we'll nominate Graham.

But if we want to have fun, we'll nominate Hillary.

LISTEN TO THE BIG DOG

Did you get the memo?

"Clinton said ending tensions in Iraq should be the priority now." ... 'We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq.'"

Just as he did when he used the airwaves to tell Kerry and the DLC to chill with the attacks on Dean--"Look what a great job he did as governor"--the Big Dog called up Larry King yesterday to warn all Dems to react quickly to the death of Saddam's worthless sons, two vicious low-lifes who really had it coming.

I doubt getting these two Aces will help Bush a great deal in Iraq, but it will certainly help him at home. This is a feel-good moment for Americans who believe that Bush, Sr. should have finished the job back in 1991. And that group includes damn near everyone I know.

Dems don't want to get on the wrong side of U.S. voters on this.

This election will be won by the side which promises the least amount of pain. Since Americans despise admitting they were wrong, Democrats would be wise to move away from any suggestion that the public were morons for supporting the removal of Hussein in the first place.

That's why Bill Clinton got on the phone yesterday.

Howard Dean zoomed into a statistical dead heat with John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman in the California Field Poll today. Proving yet again that it's better to be lucky than smart, he outpointed Big John and Smokin' Joe 16 to 15 and 14, respectively.

Meanwhile, Bob Graham's pounding on Bush is really taking effect--but it doesn't seem to help Graham. He's tied with Sharpton.

Graham is the one--not Dean--who is principally responsible for American's losing faith in Bush as commander-in-chief. Dean's challenge to Bush's Iraq policy originated on pretty much standard peacenik grounds. Graham's criticism, however, is predicated on the idea that Bush is making America less safe.

Before Graham's entry into the race, most Democrats were relying on the hapless strategy of trying to get people to think about domestic issues while Walter Rodgers was about to start riding to Baghdad on a tank turret.

Hence, Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards all voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq, hoping to make the issue go away. Graham, Dean and Kucinich opposed it.

Who packs the gear to be commander-in-chief? Kerry, Lieberman and Graham automatically make the grade because of years of service on the Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees. The can withstand tough questioning because they know the issues and have facts at their command, such as the U.S. troop strength in South Korea or Iraq. Kerry, of course, has also commanded men under fire, risked his life to save theirs, and demonstrated personal courage as no presidential candidate since JFK, winner of the Navy and Marine Corps Medal.

But Kerry and Lieberman voted for the Iraq War. If we continue to lose a soldier every other day or so, the war could become so unpopular that even qualified support for it will begin to look bad. In any event, their votes give interviewers a pretty good gotcha question at every turn: "Then whydya vote for it?"

Kucinich is the only Paul Wellstone liberal in the race--notwithstanding Ho Ho's enthusiastic borrowing of the Wellstone line about the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. His congressional rankings are deceptive. Because of a strong anti-abortion voting record, he is rated as far more conservative than he is. He has pulled a big 180 on abortion and now describes himself "I'm from the universal-health-care wing of the Democratic Party. I'm from the Roe v. Wade-litmus-test wing of the Democratic Party. I'm from the abolish-the-death-penalty wing of the Democratic Party.... I'm from the gun-control wing of the Democratic Party."

Kucinich may do the party a favor by slowing Dean's momentum.

Graham is the only candidate who both opposed the war and who has strong foreign policy/defense credentials. Carrying Fla. would be kinda nice, too.