Kerry wins a landslide
I was trudging around in the snow when the results came in. I have no idea what the speeches sounded like. I do know that NBC did a lot of exit polling, and in all categories Kerry won.

Go here for the exit polls.

It's extremely cold. And the pundits on Fox Cable News think that Dean needs to convince the pundits he's viable. Woman actually said he needed to win the reporters to his side.

Cause us peons - you know, the voters - don't mean anything.

In other news, it's weird bein in a house that gets the Daily Show at 11 instead of at 8.

Usually my description of the Sunday talks shows goes here

Alas, it was a terrible day for me and teevee. I simply had no time. Somehow, I did magically transport myself to DC, so I guess maybe I was productive today. I'm very jealous of my friend's fast internet connection. Mmm. Fast internet. So much better than dialup. Any suggestions for my ten days in DC are welcome. If for some reason, this topic interests you, go here.

My former employers are blogging.

It's not a particularly exciting blog. Perhaps it will seem strange to people who haven't heard the union line ad nauseum.

Don't get me wrong - just because unions are second only to Walmart on the worst places to work list doesn't mean I don't believe in em. It's an incredibly important and dying movement.

but that's just me.

the media's mean
So I suppose I wasn't completely quick on the Iowa uptake. The media is so relentless on Dean's crazy soundbite, it harkens back to why Dukakis lost in 88. Who needs opponents when all the free media is focused on making you look bad?

The worst part of the debate was how the frickin moderators made no attempt to live by their own rules. First, Brit-I-can't-speak-clearly Hume told the audience to hold their applause till the end. Then he could've cared less what the hell they did. That twitchy nose guy was painful to watch.

Clark looked like he needed a good night's sleep. He was also the only candidate to follow the rules to the tee, especially after they were all chastised. Note how when they were told to mind the bell, he never spoke after the stupid thing rang. And tell me again why they needed the last 15 minutes to have Right Wing Pundits tell us how the Dems did? Is it no wonder they blasted everyone?

I did like Kerry's resume schpiel. And that frickin tenets of Islam question was wack. I would've turned the question back on the questioner - enlighten me, Peter Jennings, on the tenets of Islam. While you're at it, lemme know the secrets of Hinduism, Shintoism, and whatever the North Koreans might worship.

I really can't wait for Lieberman the Frog to drop out. I also can't wait for him to turn in his Dem card and get back to the party he belongs in. I think he became a Dem back in the days when joinin the elephants made about as much sense for Jews as joinin the KKK. Now he's got to face the music - his difference of opinion w/ every other candidate isn't cause he represents a base, it's because he's the far right fringe.

I also can't wait for Kucinich to drop out. His supporters are rather annoying (worse than Nader supporters) and as long as the party takes him seriously, there'll be a reason to mock us. At least Sharpton provides some good zingers.

So, yes, it should've been a four man debate. I look fwd to the day when that's the case. And when the dumb cable guy and the local hicks stop askin the questions. Although, at times, the local tv guy was better than Jennings. Then again, there's a reason I watch the NBC Nightly News.

further erosion of Roe v. Wade
from CQ Midday Update -

HOUSE JUDICIARY APPROVES BILL CRIMINALIZING HARM OF A FETUS

By a party-line vote of 20-13, the House Judiciary Committee today approved a bill that would make it a federal offense to harm a fetus during the commission of any federal crime. The measure (HR 1997), which could be considered by the full House in February, would allow prosecutors to file separate charges in crimes involving pregnant women in cases where the fetus was also injured. "Under current federal law, injuring or killing an unborn child during an attack against a pregnant woman has no legal consequence," said Steve Chabot, R-Ohio. "This situation is unacceptable." But bill opponents said the legislation was designed to reclassify a fetus as a human, with the goal of undermining Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal. "The real rationale behind this bill is not to protect pregnant women," said Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. "It is to define a zygote . . . as a person under law."

Davos
I should prolly check up on those CEO fools via online journalism. Instead, I've listened to public radio and read a blog.

According to wizbang the penalty for wearing a necktie at the mtg is four bones. I think millionaire CEOs can afford the donation.

According to public radio, someone hired the creator of priceline.com to create a communication system in case of emergency. It's so that captains of industry and governments can speak w/o the annoying interference of the public or the media. According to the drone, it's not an example of corporate collusion, cause so many ppl will be able to participate in screwing over the public that nothin will be wrong.

Got Allies?

This fabulous tshirt can be yours for only nineteen dollars.

"because if we had wanted your dissenting opinion, we would have asked for it."

Like I've been sayin, Kerry's too liberal to win. A member of the blogosphere elite agrees.

two suggestions for SOTU coverage
Two things would make the SOTU look better and be more entertaining - first, the camera should exclusively be on the audience. Not the fools standin up and clappin for the party line, but the entire audience. I really love when the Healer reaches out and touches those party lines. There's nothin funnier than men in suits playin a clappin tug of war. (And what took the Dems so long to start clappin for the end of the Patriot Act?)

Second suggestion, to add to the humor factor - *only* let John Stewart and his band of writers comment. He was truly the best part of the NBC coverage.

(I was also pleased that on my DirectTV feed, MSNBC was a few moments faster than NBC, allowin me to zip through it at just a slightly faster speed. But graphics were better on NBC - not really understandin why their cable lovechild couldn't have access to the names of the spotlighted ppl. Then again, they need to fire whoever came up with their SOTU logo. My 8 y/o nephew could've done better. Better yet, my cousin's company could've lit a fire under their ass.)

How will South Dakotans write to the House of Reps?
Briefly break from vying for a viewing space for the State of the Union and contemplate the idea that your state doesn't have any representatives in the House. What would you do? Well, until June 1, residents of South Dakota have no one. That's cause their rep got convicted of second-degree manslaughter for killin a motorcyclist. The state scheduled a special election to replace him, but until the election they've got no one. Shouldn't the governor appoint someone to the post? Or are those DC folks wrong - does havin a voting Rep not matter?

This is by far the best use of the State of the Union address.

the momentum of a positive campaign

Tonight, the Hardball guests on CNBC were falling over themselves to remind viewers that a positive campaign reaches voters best. They were so excited to point out the obvious, that they interrupted speeches in order to comment on the speeches. My favorite part was their critique of a speech for not having any policy points in it before the speech was even done. (Not that you'd know if you only watched their coverage, since they never showed the end of the speech.)

So, while Dean did manage to get a few policy points in after the NBC crowd left, he also led with a rousing tribute to specific unions. Cause we all care about the int.l brotherhood of painters. Look, Gephardt's been courting that vote for 20 yrs and he knew enough to just talk about workin men and women, his union brothers and sisters, instead of givin everyone a civic lesson on what AFSCME stands for. Perhaps part of Dean's problem in Iowa was that there ain't a lot of SEIU members there. If we're gonna geek out on unions, we gotta admit that their members are more lock step behind their political arm than any other union.

At any rate, I was shocked and pleased by the caucus results. I still don't think Kerry will win - primarily because Clark and Edwards deliver his stump speech much more effectively. Even givin him slack for the bronchitis afflicting him, he simply doesn't ring true with anyone. Just look at his rather ugly daughter who was at his side, but not actually listening to his speech and you'll understand what voters down South will think of the New Englander. I truly like Kerry, but why should anyone believe him when he says he's goin to work for the lil guy? Folks got the wool pulled over their eyes when they voted for that "rancher" Bush; don't think it'll happen again. And the veteran and pro-veteran vote will be split now that he has to face a general....

Your Congressman and Senators go back to work tomorrow. Remind them who pays their wages and give em a call about somethin you're interested in.

Those Caucuses Explained and Expert Advice from Jon Stewart

Just yesterday (technically two days ago, but I haven't gone to sleep yet), I was telling people that The Daily Show offers the most insightful political commentary on t.v. Of course, I was speaking to a group of fellow WILPFers, so they mostly had no clue what I was talking about.

Anyway, to prove my point, Tom Brokaw quoted Stewart on Meet the Press. He said: "Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" says these candidates who voted for the war say, "I voted for the participle but not the conjunction." I mean, they've got all these legalistic explanations going on."

Personally, I think it's pretty clear what the candidates are saying on that issue, but I guess it makes better teevee fodder to call em legalistic liers. Note how no one brings up the fact that Dean supported a bill that pretty much gave a carte blanche to invade Iraq, but didn't end up being the bill passed by Congress.

Anyway, Gephardt was on the program before the roundtable. I felt kinda bad for him. I don't really understand why his campaign has no money, but it seems really sad to have to win or end your campaign based on the Iowa frickin caucuses.

The pundits are still fascinated by political organizing. I'm amused at how similar it is to union organizing. Russert brought out a copy of a Dean campaign info sheet on the fine art of door knocking. Included were the age old adages about bringing water, rattling gates to make sure no dogs are gonna bite you, and smiling. It also included a rap (a script for talkin to the voter at the door). I'm not quite sure why this was surprising to the roundtable, but good to know unions and politicians are using the same master organizers. Too bad neither camp gets much traction with the majority of Americans. (It's their emphasis on polling over relationships. And perhaps their adherance to a strict hierarchy model.)

On This Week, George Will squirmed frightfully - I believe he was extremely uncomfortable having to sit next to the extremely liberal Kerry dismiss his constant attack via poll numbers. Kerry had a valid point - if he paid attention to polls, he shoulda dropped out months ago. But Brahmins are tougher than all that rubbish; they know their money and charm can eventually persuade the peons to follow them. I'm not actually trying to disparage Kerry - I liked having him as my senator. He is a true liberal. He vowed to filibuster the Alaska drilling bill back in the day. And unlike many other rich white guys, he didn't duck outta Vietnam. But at the end of the day, I think he can't win for two reasons - he looks like a Boston Brahmin and he's from the same state as Dukakis (another fine liberal, by the way). Politicians in Mass have so little experience actually campaigning, that they forget not everyone works in a mill or has a Harvard degree. Frankly, the only place in American life for New England to dominate is on the football field. (Yes, the Pats will win the Super Bowl.)

In other news, as my first commentor in prolly a year pointed out, George S. role played a caucus for us. I sorta understand now why it takes so long for the damn thing to take place. It's actually a somewhat smart system. The smart part is making people get together at the same time and remember that they are members of a party, not just individuals. I personally like the fact that the party makes a money pitch at the beginning of the night - people should put their money where their mouth is, although I don't think that means everyone at the caucus should give the Iowa Democratic Party money. (Instead, you should join Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, regardless of your gender.)

After the introductions, people move about the room for a half an hour deciding which candidate to stand for. I'm not clear why after two years of campaigning, they need another half an hour to decide who their first choice is, but there you go. A candidate must have 15% of the votes to be viable. After the first round, people standing for nonviable candidates have the opportunity to choose another candidate or choose to stand aside. They continue this jockeying game until everyone's standing for a viable candidate. I think the reason it can take awhile is that everyone can switch their vote during the second and proceeding rounds, not just those standing for a nonviable candidate. The truly arcane part of the process is how they count votes. Each precinct is given X number of votes. Y represents the number of people who attend the caucus. Z represents the number of people who stand for a particular candidate. For each viable candidate, their delegates are determined by the following formula: (X times Z) divided by Y. The precinct captain at the end of the night calls in the final delegate counts via touchtone technology.

For myself, the best part of the caucus happens at the very beginning - independents, Republicans, an unregistered voters can show up on the night of the caucus, re-register (or register for the first time) as a Democrat and then participate in the caucus. Here in California, we tried to pass an proposition to allow election day registration and the voters rejected it (conservative white folks are still afraid of brown people here in "liberal heaven." That's part of why we have a Republican governor.) I also appreciate the fact that you have to re-register as a member of the party to vote in their primary. (Here in Cali, an independent can vote in either party's primary.)

I still find the ABC News bus annoying and a ridiculous space for an interview. I preferred the Meet the Press set at the Democratic Caucus headquarters in Iowa, even if it meant the MTP logo was only a blurry background during the show. That was less distracting than the random person in the parking lot on This Week.

At 5:40am on January 15, someone in the federal government accessed this page.

[pause]

I'm somewhat less concerned, now that I realize that they used dogpile to find webpages containing the words "dancing queen" singers. Good to know I'm good enough for government work.

Teevee chattering and In person Discussion
Yesterday, I watched The Daily Show, News Hour with Jim Leherer, and Real Time with Bill Maher. Today, I watched ABC and NBC Nightly News and the roundtable portion of Hardball. Everyone waxed philosophic about the statistical deadheat in Iowa. A few defended the arcane caucus system as "true democracy." Again, I don't generally trust democracy to 10% of eligible voters who feel inclined to spend three plus hours taking a stand for a candidate, but according to the news media, I'm in the minority.

While I'm on the subject, exactly how arcane is the Iowa caucus? Why exactly does it take three hours before they get around to standing in a part of the room for their candidate? Personally, if I was an Iowan I would feign allegiance to Gephardt - simply to get a ride to the caucus in the bitter cold and a free meal and entertainment. But, seriously, why? And why aren't the hundreds of reporters talkin to the other 90% of Iowans who don't bother with these things? The BBC has 40 reporters in Iowa.

That terrible California Representative, Darrell Issa - the man who bankrolled the recall election by paying the petition gatherers who got the issue on the ballot - was on Real Time. I found out he's a helluva lot easier to stomach than that actor who played a porn king on the Fox show, Skin. I'm still trying to figure out what Al Sharpton is doing in the race (the other yapper on the show), besides offerring witty quips. I'm glad to know Issa can articulate the neocon line coherently. Clark checked in from New Hampshire and looked like he hadn't taken the size sticker off his new sweater. (So far, the media talks to him about his clothing choices and foreign policy. I'm still waiting for someone to ask him about that tax plan he rolled out a few weeks ago.)

Jon Stewart had one of my favorite senators on. (Yes, I am a dork and have favorite senators. Thanks for askin.) Joe Biden, ranking Democratic on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was a tad more interesting than he usually is on Meet the Press. He actually articulated points precisely and answered questions directly. Sure, he usually does that, but not quite as succintly as he did on The Daily Show. Besides, I think it's true that politicians like lookin cool in the eyes of their kids, and more of their kids watch The Daily Show than the Sunday morning shows. I'm still unclear why the man represents a state - exactly what gives Delaware the right to be a state over other small areas, like say, Los Angeles County? I bet our population is larger than his state. Furthermore, he should defend the name of his neighbor, that non-island who's claim to fame until recently was having legal tattoo parlors for alterna kids from Massachusetts to flock to.

In the real world, I went to a speech on "Israel - Palestine: Is Peace Possible?" Sponsored by the LA Branch of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Our speaker was Yossi Khen, a board member of the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, who urged us to support and promote the Geneva Accord.

So, here's the deal: high level nongovernmental leaders of Israel and Palestine met over the course of two and a half years and hammered out solutions to all of the major points of contention between the two states. The Geneva Accord is not a Road Map - it is a Peace Treaty. It is a document that represents compromise on the part of both countries. Its framers conceived of the idea to shine a light on the fact that there are people on both sides of the issue willing to speak about peace and willing to compromise in order to achieve peace. Some people scoff at it, saying it's worthless because it isn't the work of state representatives. For me, that's precisely what is so beautiful about it. How many people in the U.S. say the government doesn't speak for them, so they don't bother being involved in civil affairs? The Israelis who negotiated the agreement went beyond the rhetoric of calling the other side's leader a terrorist; the Palestinians while maintaining the right to part of Jerusalem, conceded the right of return for refugees (but upholding the need to compensate those refugees for their lost land, and offerring them space within Palestine.)

Tikkun has a great website explaining the Geneva Accord.

An email from the usually whiney, sometimes thought provoking FAIR brought me to The Memory Hole. A gem for conspiracy theorists and left whackers alike. (The site includes copies of the infamous Hitler ads that were entered in the bush in 30 seconds MoveOn ad competition.)

Salvation will Solve Your Problems
This Just In from The Faithful in Chief:
"Problems that face our society are oftentimes problems that, you know, require something greater than just a government program or a government counselor to solve. Intractable problems, problems that seem impossible to solve, can be solved. There is the miracle of salvation that is real, that is tangible, that is available for all to see." -- President BUSH, urging faith-based programs.
from today's Congressional Quarterly Midday Update

for more on why social problems cannot be rectified by faith alone, see George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London.

I just found Washington Monthly recently and feel like sharing another interesting quote:

A few years ago, there was a concert on the National Mall to support resistance against the government of Tibet, and it was clear from interviews with The Washington Post that some of the performers that day couldn't find the country on a map. That's not exactly shocking. You want a speech about international affairs from a Beastie Boy about as much as you want your senator to sing "No Sleep Till Brooklyn." Yes, we all want to change the world, but, trust me, nobody wants a rock star to do it.

from "Count Me Out: why rock and politics don't mix" by David Segal

I once commented to a vice president of the SEIU that if the Democratic party got out the vote the way we did for a union election, they wouldn't have any trouble winning. He replied that their GOTV structure was even more sophistacted then our's, noting their use of voting records and complicated computer programs to precisely target their GOTV. Not having any direct contact with a political GOTV since the 88 presidential election, I didn't try to refute his point. Here, finally, is my opinion. Written, of course, by someone more knowledgable than I.

From "The Myth of the Democratic Establishment" by Nicholas Confessore:
The reformers [during the late 70s] succeeded in breaking up the old system. But the effect was less to devolve power to the party's grassroots than to shrink what had been a national Democratic establishment into a largely Washington-based one, which absorbed the reformers into its ranks. Power flowed away from the disintegrating state organizations and to a growing array of Washington-based pressure groups descended from the civil rights, feminist, consumer, and environmental movements. But these--the Children's Defense Fund, Common Cause, and Public Citizen, among others--increasingly were Beltway-based organizations run by professional activists. They raised money from members but didn't involve them much in day-to-day politics the way, say, neighborhood party organizations turned out voters in return for filling potholes. These groups influenced politics largely through endorsements, lobbying their allies on the Hill, direct mail, and media campaigns. (The exceptions were labor and the black urban machines which supplanted the white ethnic ones, both of which could still turn out voters the old-fashioned way.) Similarly, as advertising and free media began to supplant state parties and urban machines as the establishment's conduit to voters, a burgeoning class of Washington-based pollsters, political consultants, and fundraisers came to the fore. The reign of the bosses gave way to the reign of the experts.

Big Brother Strikes Again
From today's Congressional Quarterly Midday Update:

CONSERVATIVES SEEK TO BLOCK OVER-THE-COUNTER 'MORNING AFTER' PILL

More than four dozen House conservatives have written President Bush and the head of the Food and Drug Administration to urge that the FDA reject an expert panel's recommendation that the "morning after" emergency contraceptive pill be approved for over-the-counter sales. The FDA's advisory panel recommended that step Dec. 16, saying it could dramatically reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. Led by Dave Weldon, R-Fla., the group said, "We are very concerned that no data is available to suggest what impact this decision will have on the sexual behavior of adolescents and the subsequent impact on adolescent sexual health. . . . Unfortunately, this important public health information was not considered as part of the review process." The FDA panel, the lawmakers said, assessed only the drug's safety and its effect on pregnancy. They said making the pill levonorgestrel, or Plan B, available over the counter could increase teenagers' exposure to sexually transmitted diseases.
-----------
Raise your hand if you think these lawmakers care about exposure to STDs. Right. They didn't convince me either.

Sunday gets interesting again
Tim Russert had John Kerry on Meet the Press today. Kerry's sore throat was slightly less distracting then the fact that he kept licking his lips. I know my comment has nothing to do with the substance of his appearance, but when you're watchin a talk show on a large screen tv, it's what you notice most. He also babbled about how much momentum he's gathering, which is a sad euphemism for "I got money, I should have momentum, where did all my supporters go?"

Then Tim had a roundtable discussion, which was rather interesting. One of their topics was the impact of blogging on the election. Here's Tim in his own words:

MR. RUSSERT: He [Dean] now loves Iowa. One of the things that we will find out is just how truly effective is the Internet in this presidential race? Johns Hopkins University has already been studying it. Look at this: "The Use Of Blogs In The 2004 Presidential Election," a study by Johns Hopkins University. And now for the computer illiterate crowd, this is a blog. This is Howard Dean's blog. Here's Wesley Clark's blog. Here's George W. Bush's blog. And here to help us is Chuck Todd of National Journals Hotline. What is a blog.

Then Chuck Todd reminded us that blog stands for web log and said some other completely not interesting "facts" about bloggers not liking traditional media outlets, yadda yadda.

then:
MR. RUSSERT: In effect, it's a cyber-bulletin board.

MR. TODD: Yeah, exactly.

MR. RUSSERT: But now people who don?t like Howard Dean have occasionally gone up there and said some negative things and they are called trolls.

MR. TODD: You love this term, don't you?

MR. RUSSERT: Correct?

MR. TODD: Yes, it is the term.

MR. RUSSERT: Roger Simon, when I say troll, I think of you.

MR. SIMON: Well, thank you very much.

MR. TODD: You're a blogger, Simon.

MR. RUSSERT: But you're a blogger.

MR. SIMON: I am a blogger sort of. I mean, the difference between. Look, a true blog is I woke up this morning, I decided to skip chem class, now I want to write about the last episode of "Friends." That's what blogs are. You know, it's people talking to each other. My site is actually written columns. There's a difference between writing and typing basically. Well, I mean, the theory between blogging is half correct. It's everybody has an opinion and then the other half is: And everyone else wants to read about it. That's not necessarily true. When I first put up the site, it got all these responses. I thought people wanted me to respond to them. They don't. They want to talk to each other. And that has been the power that Dean has tapped into.

Here's a link to Roger's blog.

they talked some more and then:
MR. RUSSERT: You know, it's so striking to me. When we had the big Internet bubble and everyone was saying, "The Internet's the wave of the future and all the brick-and-mortar businesses are in trouble?" and the AOL Time Warner merger and on and on, and suddenly people said, "How do we make money off the Internet?" The question here is: Will the people who use the Internet, and talk to the blogs, will they show up on caucus night? Will they show up to vote? We have not seen it. We do not know. If they do, Howard Dean will win big. Ironically in all this, I was reading New Yorker magazine the other night, and at the end of 2002, Howard Dean himself said, "What?s a blog?"

MR. TODD: Ooh. But, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: He did not know much about the Internet. It's Joe Trippi, his campaign manager, who actually surfs the Net, reads the blogs and steals?not steals, borrows?ideas from them. Right.

MR. TODD: I'll give you one that he took. I was fascinated one time when he had this whole phone-banking idea asking these young Dean volunteers to use their unused cell phone minutes from the weekend to make calls on the weekend to undecided Iowa supporters. This was, like, months ago. And I asked the campaign about it and Trippi said, "Oh, we got it from the blog."

MR. BROWNSTEIN: I think the one thing we know that's lasting, sorry, Roger, is that this has clearly provided a new way of raising money. I mean, Howard Dean is following in the footsteps of moveon.org, the liberal online advocacy groups. And both of them have demonstrated that you can raise very large sums of money from small donors who, in effect, give on the installment plan, Tim. They come back again and again. If Howard Dean wins Iowa or New Hampshire, his ability to then turn to his base, very few of whom have given the maximum, and raise a very large sum of money very quickly is a significant tactical advantage in this race, and I think every candidate from here on in is going to have a major Internet fund-raising strategy.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, looking at these blogs, I was somewhat taken by the similarity. David, your paper, The Washington Post, has an article by David Von Drehle talking about how similar they are. And he has a wonderful line. He said, "Immature poets imitate," said T.S. Eliot. "Mature poets steal." But when you think about the Internet, in 1992, the race of Bill Clinton and former President Bush, there were about 50 pages on the World Wide Net. There are now five billion. For someone who's covered politics a long time, what is your sense of the Internet? And how much of a role is it playing in this election?

MR. BRODER: Well, I am not and I never have blogged, and I'm going to get to the end of my career without blogging. I think...

MR. RUSSERT: Are you now or have you ever been a blogger, Broder?

MR. TODD: DavidBroder.com, we?'e going to...

MR. BRODER: No, but I think it's a tremendous tool, and it's part of what is the healthiest trend in our politics, which is going back to personal communication, away from the mass media. Forgive me, NBC. But I think the healthiest thing that's going on now is people talking to people, either through the Internet or, as we're seeing on the ground in Iowa, face-to-face communication.

they babbled some more and then Tim said something I didn't understand:
MR. RUSSERT: We have to take a quick break. We'll be right back with more of our roundtable. And, Big Russ, don't go near the blog.

Who's Big Russ???

After the break, they talked about the horse race in Iowa. Folowing up on my outrage from last week, let me point out the most important aspect of the Iowa caucuses - they represent nothing.

MR. BRODER: Right. But one point about the Iowa turnout, even if it doubles from what it was four years ago, it's still about a quarter of the Democratic registration in Iowa. Yeah, I love Iowans. They're great people. But it?s not a terribly accurate reflection of the views, even of Iowa Democrats.

MR. SIMON: We all keep writing "this is a grass-roots campaign." There's very few roots out there. As David said last time, 10 percent of the registered Democrats voted; 90 percent did not. It?s a gain for party insiders. And they want to keep it that way.

All Quotes are from NBC News' Meet the Press.

At another point during the roundtable, the pundits said the race between Gephardt and Dean voters in Iowa is a race between drivers of Crown Victorias and Volvos. (Meaning the former are the older, New Deal gaggle pro-Gephardt and the latter are younger, college-educated Deaniacs.) Hrm. Makes me wonder where I fit in. I suppose nowhere since I drive a Crown Victoria (although mine's named a Grand Marquis, but it's the same damn car), I'm college-educated (although unemployed at the moment) and support neither of those candidates.

Onto that other Sunday show.
George really, really likes a high production value to his show. Apparently, young folks are supposed to flock to This Week because it is flashier than Meet the Press. I still prefer substance, but I also still watch the show. (Although the two come on at the same time in LA, and I always watch MTP first while my mind is fresh and more interested in the content.) Right, so he did a montage of crap from the campaign trail - a focus group of undecided voters and interviews with Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and Gephardt. What was most frustrating about the whole thing was George's emphasis on the fact that ABC News has its own bus. WHY???? The whole point of the bus is to get people from one campaign event to another. Yet, when most of the candidates got on "his bus," it started driving. Where exactly was ABC News taking the candidates? What point is there for a news van to drive when the people they're covering are sitting in the damn van????

For once, The List included voices only in the Voices section and images in the Images section. There were only three excerpts from The Funnies and The Note was actually interesting. It included info on how political organizers rate voters. Guess what? They use the same scale as union organizers. (George didn't tell me that, my work as a union organizer did.) It's a 1 to 5 scale. Here's the political version:

1 - Strongly supports candidate x.
2 - Supports x but might be dissuaded by bad weather or pressure from his boss.
3 - Undecided
4 - Anti x.
5- Actively campaigning for x's opponent.

(George only explained 1-3, but I believe my other definitions are correct.)
FYI, here's the union version of the scale:
1 - Pro union Leader. (Actively campaigning for the union by leading coworkers.)
2 - Pro union.
3 - Undecided
4 - Anti union.
5 - Actively involved in the anti union campaign.

George said the work of political organizers in the last ten days is to move the threes to twos and the twos to ones. In union organizing, during the last ten days, you stop talking to undecided people and only work on getting out the yes vote - which means coming up with plans for getting your ones and twos to the polls. And when I say you stop talking, I mean you actively stop engaging anyone else in conversation, and you get your union supporters to stop talking to them as well. The idea is that you try to make people forget that the election is happening, or that it's a big deal, so that the majority of the people who actually turn up at the polls are your supporters. That way, you can win a majority of the vote without winning a majority of the electorate.

Right then. Well, this ends the roundup of the talk shows I watch.

This Just In: A strong and free America is good for the Jews
dude. I just had to point out one of the most ridiculous tag lines I've seen recently. It comes from the Jews for Clark webpage.

More disturbing, is the statement from Clark re the MidEast peace process found on the site. He says: "Currently, Israel is building a security fence — not because it wants to, but because terrorism has forced its hand. The fence is not a barrier to the peace process. No country can negotiate if the other side believes it has no alternatives. The fence will help contain the terrorist onslaught. It will warn other parties in the Middle East that they need to start negotiating — now. But it is not a sustainable substitute for peace. "

The security fence, aka apartheid wall, is a terrible trajedy. I would expect that someone who saw the cessation of violence in the Balkans would understand that peace cannot be created by building fences. Sigh. Well, no one's perfect, eh?

Congress to Actually Oversee Administrative Department
This is from today's Congressional Quarterly Midday Update:

HOUSE PANEL SEEKS TO ASSERT AUTHORITY OVER HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT
The House Homeland Security Committee, which saw little action in 2003, is about to embark on its biggest legislative effort so far -- designing from scratch a department of Homeland Security authorization bill. Such a measure, which would set funding ceilings and policy guidelines for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), would be a massive undertaking for a novice committee that marked up only a few minor bills last year. An authorization bill would help the committee assert some control over the 180,000-employee department and solidify the panel's standing as the dominant Capitol Hill player on homeland security matters. Committee member Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., said the bill is necessary because the oversight process "has been piecemeal so far." The Homeland Security Committee was set up as a select committee for the 108th Congress, but its members are hoping it will be elevated to a permanent standing committee for the 109th.
------------------
I'd like to know who currently allocates money for this poorly named department and how Congress oversees other departments. I'd also like clarification on why the Interior Department couldn't manage security of the interior.

the No Duh School of War
From yesterday's Today's Papers:
With Marine units about to return to Iraq, the papers continue to highlight the Marines' promises of a softer approach than the Army has taken. "I'm appalled at the current heavy-handed use of air [strikes] and artillery in Iraq," one Marine officer told the Post. "Success in a counterinsurgency environment is based on winning popular support, not blowing up people's houses."

1000 Women for the Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize has only been awarded to 11 women (two of whom were founding members of WILPF). A Swiss group started the idea of awarding the prize to a 1000 women working for peace in 2005, the 100th anniversary of the first woman's award. Their website has more info.

Send More Girls to School

That's the message from UNICEF, The UN Children's Fund.
Go here for their 04 report

a Clark Meetup
Okay, so I admit it. I'm a Democrat and I'm pretty sure I've chosen my choice for the nomination. I never pretended to be impartial about politics.

So this evening I went to my first Clark Meetup. I was clued into their occurance back in November, but I wasn't able to go because it conflicted with the LA Branch board meeting of WILPF. We changed meeting days, so I was able to go and buy a union made tshirt for $18. Seems like a lot to pay when they didn't even have my size, but I sometimes like to put my money where my mouth is. More disconcerting than the price of the tshirt was the complete lack of relational organizing. No one cared what my name was, why I had shown up at an Acapulco restaurant relatively far from where I live, or what unique qualities I could bring to a grassroots organizing effort. I was given a form to fill out to volunteer more time and asked to write a postcard to someone in New Hampshire. Then we watched a seventeen minute video on the general. Guess what? People in his past really like him. That was a shocker of a revelation. The other thing I found interesting about the video was that he mentioned that his biological father was Jewish and that his paternal grandparents fled Russian pogroms. Now, not to again diss my own tribe (yo, my peeps fled those pogroms too!) but the man was raised by his mother and his stepfather as a Christian. I dunno. Just seems disingenious to rush to point out the Otherness in your background.

and now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast
Praise the Heavens, the Holidays are over! How do I know? The political pundits have stopped pretending to care about the tone or conversation or any other inane aspect of America. Nope, they're back to what they know how to do best - bore you to sleep on Sunday morning.

Russert had another interview with Wesley Clark. Don't you like the fact that the man has the same name as the hero of "The Princess Bride"? Okay, maybe it's just me. In other news, he was asked the same questions he answered a thousand times about foreign policy and whether he'd accept the veep seat with Dean. Russert felt very proud of himself that he got Clark to admit that like Sherman (you remember him, the fire breathing Union general from the Civil War...no? you don't? Well, I guess you didn't like that PBS series as much as I did as a kid) he wasn't runnin for second banana. While watching this fascinating exchange of completely unimportant television, I was reading the Calendar section cover story from today's LA Times. Turns out the music critics still think rock is back, even though American Idol winners sell tons more records than the White Stripes or the Strokes. Another shocking revelation - critics prefer rock to pop. [Note: I was going to include a hyperlink to the LA Times article, but apparently Calendar Live is such an amazing service that it is only available to paying customers. Since I don't expect you to pay the LA Times for the pleasure of reading a page full of ads, there's no link. Go to KROQ's homepage for more info, since according to the article, they're the keepers of the keys to the kingdom of coolness.]

After the Clark interview, Russert brought in a roundtable plus people in Iowa. I wish I was like the majority of Americans and knew nothing about the Democratic presidential hopefuls. After all, if I was that smart, I wouldn't be paying attention to what 70,000 people in Iowa thought. That's right - during the last caucus, a whopping 70,000 folks showed up to cast a vote, or stand in a room, whatever they do in a caucus and decided the fate of a political party. Tell me again why the hell 70,000 people who live in the middle of nowhere make decisions for the rest of us.

Safire was his usual, not-so-witty self whom everyone feels the need to placate cause he's old, white, not liberal and syndicated in the New York Times. (The woman who looked like a horse laughed at a comment he made that wasn't funny.) He'd love for Dean to be the Democratic nominee so that Bush can whip his ass. Surprise, Surprise. Another old white guy, David Broder, reported from Iowa that surprisingly, despite the forecasting of the pundits of DC, people are still deciding who to vote for. It is surprising that when the media has already declared a winner, those silly people who haven't voted yet can't make up their minds. Broder was joined by a random Iowa newspaper man, enjoying his quadrennial rise to national fame. There was another white guy in the studio with Russert, Safire, and the horse-woman, but I don't remember anything he said.

So that was Meet the Press. Just once, I'd like to hear Clark asked a series of questions on his domestic agenda. Just once, and then I'll stop whining.

On this Week, George and George had a date with the Frog. No, not the spokesfrog for the WB, but that other nationally-recognized Frog - Lieberman. He babbled on about how nothing's good about the extremes of either party, and people shouldn't vote for Clark because he voted for Republicans in previous elections. (Quick point of clarification - people have made a lot of brouha over Clark's presidential voting record; how do they know? I thought we all cast secret ballots in those lil election booths. Is that not true anymore?) He also tarred and feathered Dean as a crazy left winger. Apparently, what the country needs now is an Orthodox Jew with a penchant for savin Israel from those crazy people known as their neighbors. [Maybe someone will label that last sentence anti-semitic. So be it. I don't think overly religious people should be president, I don't think anyone is ever going to vote for an Orthodox Jew for president, and I aint stickin by anyone just cause he's a member of my tribe. On the other hand, I do believe leaders should have a spiritual foundation.]

George cut off the Frog to cut to a much more pressing national issue - the scandal of the Catholic Church. Apparently, we all needed to hear that some priest is sorry that kids were molested. He also doesn't believe the law of celibacy had anything to do with the molestations or that lifting the ban on sex would bring in any new recruits to the priesthood. And he babbled on for a lot longer than this recap has time or inclination to say.

Then we heard predictions on the future of global affairs from the guru himself, Fareed Zakariah. Whenever I see that man, I always wonder, what the hell kinda credentials do you need to become a pundit? Cause I'm thinkin it could be a very lucrative career. I dislike him mostly because he's the most self-assured of all the pundits that make the rounds. He's so frickin sure of everything he says about world affairs, it makes me wonder if he has a personal connection with G-d. How else could he know so much, without a shadow of a doubt? Furthermore, why is his word taken as gospel? Just cause he has a regular column in Newsweek and isn't another old, white guy?

Georgey also did this Week's List. I'll note again that the Images always include audio and yet after Images, they then do a Video clip. This week, to try to make everyone think that The Note Really, Truly Is the Most Important Political Read Every Single Day, they intro'd it as a new feature of This Week. It was just as boring as that time I tried to read it online. Since all the comics apparently took the week off, they did a "best of" The Funnies. They weren't really the best, but there you go. Jon Stewart's riff on when did we declare war on sex tourism reminded me of how serious that problem really is. But then, the white guys in suits wont ever be the victims of sexual slavery, so it makes a funny punchline. In the interest of full disclosure, I did laugh at the joke. More people died this week, which rounded out the program.

Syria Introduces Security Council Resolution On Middle East WMD-Free Zone
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
By Jim Wurst
U.N. Wire

Excerpts:
Syrian Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said a Middle East WMD-free zone "should be at the top of the agenda of the international community." He added, "This is a very crucial issue in the Middle East, and I think once we achieve it, we shall have a further step in solving … complicated problems in a very sensitive region."

The draft "emphasizes" the role of the [security] council "in adopting a global approach to countering the spread of all [WMD] in the countries of the Middle East without exception" and calls on the states in the region to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. Some Arab states, including Syria, are not parties to all of the latter three conventions, but Israel is the only country in the region outside of the NPT. "It is applicable to everybody, but in fact Israel is the real [issue], whether we like it or not, because Israel has all these kinds of weapons," said Mekdad.

full article