The New Media Message is that Dean is unstable, temperamental, and prone to lose his temper. He gave them the photo they were looking for to make the point, too. If you know that the media's out to get you, why on earth would you do anything to help them out?

Posted by: Kenneth G. Cavness at January 20, 2004 08:44 AM | PERMALINK

This is the only picture that makes him look like a frothing, Nuremburg-ish nutball

If it screeds, it leads.

Posted by: karog at January 20, 2004 08:46 AM | PERMALINK

what's up with the LA Times' choice of this picture of Howard Dean for today's paper? Are they trying to make him look like Hitler?

Yes.

Posted by: Matt Davis at January 20, 2004 08:47 AM | PERMALINK

Kenneth: Well, it's not Dean's fault. There's no way you can control what you look like every second, and as I said, every other picture taken during this speech (and after) makes him look upbeat and determined. For some reason, though, the LAT chose this one.

I wonder how many other papers ran this photo instead of one of the others?

Posted by: Kevin Drum at January 20, 2004 08:47 AM | PERMALINK

If he LOOKS like a duck, and he SOUNDS like a duck, then Dean is certainly a saliva-specked lunatic

Posted by: aish at January 20, 2004 08:48 AM | PERMALINK

Did you see his post-caucus 'speech'? He was a nutball.

Posted by: Chris at January 20, 2004 08:48 AM | PERMALINK

This Dean bashing is becoming quite an education for me.

In the clip from last night I saw a playful Dean spinning up the crowd and laughing at the end of the "rant".

Un-farcking-believable. It's getting to the point where I almost don't care anymore, which is odd because I think I'd rather see Clark go against Bush than Dean (without the Congress Dean wouldn't be able to do squat anyway).

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 08:48 AM | PERMALINK

Kenneth, because when you are making a hundred speeches, and hundreds or thousands of photo's are shot of you, you *will* have at least a couple which show whatever the editor wants to show.

This is not 'when you knew that Starr was after you, Clinton, WTF did you have an affair with an intern?'.

Posted by: Barry at January 20, 2004 08:50 AM | PERMALINK

My guess is that picture was taken during his Iowa "concession shout," during which he had several moments where he sounded like a frothing nutball. Or the lead singer of AC/DC.

I don't see any similarity to Hitler, myself. Maybe Howard Beale in the movie Network.

Posted by: Reid at January 20, 2004 08:50 AM | PERMALINK

It is quite hilarious. Dean was having fun and deliberately going over the top and the yaawrl just emphasized that. But, the word from on high is that Democrats aren't allowed to make jokes.

Posted by: Atrios at January 20, 2004 08:53 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks Atrios, as always. Gee, Kevin, I too am amazed -- nay, shocked! shocked! -- that a major media outlet would spin images and words to make a Democratic candidate look bad.

Meanwhile, this quote: "I've done more for civil rights than any other president" gets no play except in the liberal blogosphere. Delusional, anyone?

Posted by: Dan Perreten at January 20, 2004 08:56 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin - who made that call? The 'liberal media', of course. Which, as you've noticed, gives Bush about 100 free passes, and then fits Democrats into the slanderous story of the day.

I'll keep on saying it - by Nov 04, your opinion of the media will be lowered immensely, and the most paranoid left-wing theories about the media will seem to be reasonable, in light of their behavior.

You'll find that when you talk with most people (i.e., TV news viewers), that you'll have to refrain from staring at them like they just came from Mars.

Posted by: Barry at January 20, 2004 08:57 AM | PERMALINK

"Dean was having fun and deliberately going over the top and the yaawrl just emphasized that."

Whether or not this is true, it's still probably not a good idea to play right into the stereotype the media has created (rightly or wrongly) for you. After all, you didn't see Clinton get up on stage with 20 Playboy bunnies, you know.

Posted by: Al at January 20, 2004 08:59 AM | PERMALINK

I saw the clips of his speech during which this pix was taken and he looked and sounded like he was on speed. And that was newsworthy. Geez, can't this guy learn something about imagery in politics?

I was thrilled over the caucus results. Given that Bush is virtually unbeatable, I'd much rather lose with Kerry and Clark or Edwards than with screaming Howard. Guys, we've got seats in the Senate to protect. Don't we?

Posted by: kimster at January 20, 2004 09:02 AM | PERMALINK

The image I got is not unlike that of Peyton Manning trying to lead a revival after getting his ass handed to him by the Patriots. Suffice it to say it was a rather incongrous display by someone who'd received less than half the support of the plurality winner in the caucuses.

I don't see the "Hitler" thing, though. He did look pretty purple when he made that primal scream at the end, but that isn't the same thing...

Posted by: Chris Lawrence at January 20, 2004 09:04 AM | PERMALINK

Tying my comments to Kenneth and Kevin together:

It's not about 'playing to stereotype', or 'giving the media what it's looking for'. The media will pick a story, and fit the news into that story.

Note how the 'Angry Howie' story spread through the media like the plague. Note how little press attention was given to the justification for anger.

Watch for the next guy - Clark, or Kerry. A theme will arise, and will spread like wildfire. All news will be cut to fit.

Posted by: Barry at January 20, 2004 09:05 AM | PERMALINK

To reiterate: I was disappointed in what I saw and heard last night.

Kevin's trailer: The winner of the Republican caucuses was George W. Bush. Just thought I'd let you know.

Could almost be repharsed: The winner of the Democratic caucuses was George W. Bush. Just thought I'd let you know.

As far as the total Presidential package goes, I didn't see it (based on my preceptions of mass saleability).

I went to bed despondent.

But woke with these optimisms:

1) Edwards did appear very "Vicepresidential."

2) A solid turnout bodes well for us in Nov.

3) That someone in Clark's campaign will show him a video of his little spat with Dole and he will make corrections (The kosovo horn section is too loud maestro).

Posted by: -pea- at January 20, 2004 09:11 AM | PERMALINK

Speaking of weird pictures, I distinctly remember a front page NY Times from during the 2000 election, back when I was a subscriber. They had a picture of Gore and a picture of Bush adjacent to each other on the front page. Gore looked like an evil wizard bad-guy type from a horror movie, and Bush looked like he was completely, 100%, Grateful Dead concert level stoned. It was pretty ridiculous that two pictures that were that unflattering were right next to each other.

Posted by: Haggai at January 20, 2004 09:12 AM | PERMALINK

We got back from dinner just in time to see the end of the Dean speech on CNN. Watching the tail end of that speech was one of the strangest moments in this campaign year.

We walk in. Turn on CNN. We see Dean on stage yelling what sounds like Spanish to a roaring crowd. At first, we thought maybe we had SAP turned on our TV. We were watching his lips closing to make sure that he was actually yelling in Spanish to his supporters.

The scene really did strike me as completely revolutionary (rolled up sleeves, yelling, hell, even the spanish added to the revolutionary feeling).

Now, I'm not going to judge whether or not it was appropriate or a good idea because frankly, I still don't know what the hell was going on.

Did anyone watch the entire thing? What was he doing? What was he saying? (The first thing I heard sounded like "Viva el Mexico," but I'm certain I must have misheard it).

Can someone please explain what I saw?

Posted by: Jason at January 20, 2004 09:15 AM | PERMALINK

No, the Republicans lost.

Posted by: Michael Froomkin at January 20, 2004 09:16 AM | PERMALINK

Given that Bush is virtually unbeatable

With Bush currently at a 50% support level, which illegal drugs must you take to come up with this judgement?

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 09:16 AM | PERMALINK

Can someone please explain what I saw?

You saw a guy firing up his troops for the next round.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Dean was having fun and deliberately going over the top and the yaawrl just emphasized that."

Well, either that's true, or the conventional wisdom is true: He's a frothing, raging nutball. Y'know, like most progressive governors/physicians are.

"After all, you didn't see Clinton get up on stage with 20 Playboy bunnies, you know."

If he did though, he sure would have gotten my respect.

Let me get this straight - most of us here are liberal, and we have a candidate who (unless he's a frothing, raging nutball) is mocking (or even satirizing) the press's treatment of him, to a group of his core supporters, and we DON'T like that?!?!?

The media is going to (and already has) made too big of a deal of of this. Why are (collectively) you helping? Don't believe the hype.

Posted by: A Fellow Kevin at January 20, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINK

Speaking of weird pictures, I distinctly remember a front page NY Times from during the 2000 election, back when I was a subscriber. They had a picture of Gore and a picture of Bush adjacent to each other on the front page. Gore looked like an evil wizard bad-guy type from a horror movie, and Bush looked like he was completely, 100%, Grateful Dead concert level stoned. It was pretty ridiculous that two pictures that were that unflattering were right next to each other.

Stupid Bush, Know-it-All Gore, now Angry Dean. It looks like confirmation for the thesis that the strongest bias of the press is for pictures / facts / spin which confirms the conventional 'wisdom.'

Posted by: marc at January 20, 2004 09:21 AM | PERMALINK

What the fuck is going on? Why are people so willingly piling onto these stereotypes.

Posted by: maj at January 20, 2004 09:22 AM | PERMALINK

What the fuck is going on? Why are people so willingly piling onto these stereotypes.

Slime -- the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 09:23 AM | PERMALINK

That was one of Dean's worst performances.

He turned into Santo, Mexican Wrestler & Crime Fighter.

(Not that there's anything wrong with being a Mexican wrestler AND a crime fighter, but you really can't throw Presidential candidate into that mix.)

Very embarassing performance. I took three years of spanish in high school, and I have no idea what he was saying. It may have been some type of Matamoros death chant. (Or that will be the Drudge-spin, I'm sure.)

Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 20, 2004 09:25 AM | PERMALINK

Lets not go on the 'liberal media' tangent too far. Just because the media is liberal doesn't mean it has to love Dean (anymore). Dean is the anti-establishment figure. The Democratic party establishment doesn't like him, and the media is much more closely aligned with the party establishment than it is with Dean.

So the LA Times bias shown in the picture doesn't do much to establish that there isn't liberal media bias. But you might want to keep it in mind when you pretend that the media typically reins in its bias.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at January 20, 2004 09:27 AM | PERMALINK

"At the King event, Dean and his aides wandered around outside the building as reporters followed shouting questions - a cameraman fell backward and Dean swiped angrily at a microphone boom"

Oh yeah...I want THIS guy's finger on the button......

Posted by: aish at January 20, 2004 09:27 AM | PERMALINK

I mean Santo, Mexican Wrestler & Crime Fighter

(Stupid antique html tags)

Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 20, 2004 09:28 AM | PERMALINK

i felt embarrassed for Dean while watching that speech. unless CNN was actually running Dean's screen test audition to replace Vince McMahon. if that was the case, he did a bang-up job.

Posted by: sean at January 20, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINK

Did anyone watch the entire thing? What was he doing? What was he saying? (The first thing I heard sounded like "Viva el Mexico," but I'm certain I must have misheard it).

He was listing the states in the upcoming primaries and he finished by saying something like "on to Washinton, DC where we'll win the Presidency."

When you "heard 'Viva el Mexico'", he was most likely saying New Mexico.

Posted by: karog at January 20, 2004 09:30 AM | PERMALINK

you didn't see Clinton get up on stage with 20 Playboy bunnies, you know

Trenchant observation. By the same token, you don't see Bush taking the stage with Ken Lay these days, do you? Also, I suspect that Ahmed Chalabi will not be seen in his company; nor Richard Perle. Doubtless the man who occupies the Oval Office will not be addressing the supervisors of his draft board from back in the 70s in tonight's SOTU, nor his commanders from his aborted National Guard duty.

Taking your point to its logical converse, I daresay that we will be seeing plenty more events where Bush is onstage with African-American churchgoers or military grunts in uniform.

Posted by: Demetrios at January 20, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINK

I was watching the post-caucus Dean rally live on CNN. They showed a good chunk of it, well into the part where he seemed to sort of calm down and thank the people he was supposed to thank etc.

I can appreciate the fact that he was trying to rally the troops after a disappointing outcome, but it was just too nutty for me. It wasn't so much WHAT he was saying (although "New Mayheeco!", followed by chants of "Si se puede!" was just too embarrassing to watch), but it was his manner. He came across as a maniac. Maybe there were plenty of other flattering photos to choose from, but my impression of his "speech" was exactly what we see in the LA Times photo.

I felt bad for him.

Posted by: Koneko at January 20, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINK

Regrettably the vote in the US happens to be a popularity contest. Raging like a nut case doesn't make Grandma want to vote for you. Dean made a big mistake. The only thing that might help is the short American attention span. Let''s face it, did anybody remember this in Nov. 2000:

When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who them was. Today we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there." —George W. Bush, Iowa Western Community College, Jan 21, 2000

or this:

The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house." —George W. Bush, Des Moines Register debate, Iowa, Jan. 15, 2000

And lest we forget, these aren't just BUSHISMS, these quotes have alot of Bush's real vision of the world hidden within.

Dean made a big mistake. The past shows us he can make amends.

Posted by: ot at January 20, 2004 09:33 AM | PERMALINK

After a long weekend of having fun with my wife and mother-in-law in Nevada, I found myself flying back to Minneapolis during the Iowa caucuses last night. (Sober and breaking even, BTW.) My wife and I made it back to our car at 10:50pm, and on our way back home tuned the radio to Minnesota Public Radio, which at 11pm runs the BBC news feed overnight. There, I heard the Iowa results at the top of the hour, which were of course surprising, followed by a speech from John Kerry who voiced his conviction that he'd beat Bush in November. All well and good. Then, the Beeb ran Howard Dean's speech. The BBC isn't the SCLM folks, and believe me Dean sounded like a lunatic, and that primary, er, primal scream at the end just sounded strange to my ears. Dean may be good in many other respects, but I think he's just had his Ed Muskie moment. If you recall, Muskie in 1972 was running for President as a Democrat, and teared up on the stump over an attack on his wife from an arch-conservative New Hampshire newspaper publisher. It really shouldn't have been a defining moment for him, but it was - and it was downhill from there for Muskie. I suspect Dean's scream is going to get played again, and again, and again, and again over the next few days. New Hampshire voters may decide they'd rather switch to Kerry than fight for Dean as a result. Or Clark, or Edwards.

FWIW, the biggest winner out of Iowa last night was Zogby. Tracking polls now rule and candidates will be driven by them at least through Super Tuesday.

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 09:33 AM | PERMALINK

None of the above! Especially not Bush.

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=549&org_

Our best hope is to build on the small base of fiscally responsible Republicans in congress who consistently oppose the runaway spending (including corporate welfare) as well as Bush's neocon-inspired hyper-interventionist foreign policy.

Here are some of the most frugal ones:

http://www.ntu.org/features/congress_by_numbers/ntu_rates_congress/2002/tpf_house_2002.php3

http://www.ntu.org/features/congress_by_numbers/ntu_rates_congress/2002/tpf_senate_2002.php3

Posted by: Rick Barton at January 20, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINK

The Republicans are fucking brilliant.

First, they see that Bush will go down in flames if he is forced to campaign on domestic policy so they somehow manage to convince Democrats the only way they can win is to abandon domestic policy and put up a foreign policy and/or military candidate. Then, they flood the blogs, newsprint and airwaves with the "Dean is Unelectable" theme, even though it is Dean's message and unconventional style that has achieved him his base and funding.

So what do we do now? We hand the nomination to Kerry? How is he going to win anyone over (except the ABBs) when he voted FOR half the crap that Bush has gotten us into? Or how about Clark? He was basically a Republican until this year...didn't even register Democrat until his campaign had already started. All Bush has to do is continuously air ads of either one of these guys agreeing WITH the Republicans. What is an undecided to think? Gee, the Democrat only became anti-Bush when he started running for the office.

Republicans. Fucking brilliant. They write the score and we Democrats sing the tune.

Posted by: Pox on both their Houses at January 20, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINK

As I have been saying for three weeks(Sebastian has it exactly right),--the Democratic establishment sees Dean as a Nov. disaster and has set about destroying him. I am praying Nader runs. I can't see any real Progressive voting for Kerry, Edwards, or Clark(who will be the next target--watch his destruction starting today). Do the Democrats really want youthful idealism in their Party, or is it just a political charade? I am very disillusioned.

Posted by: BushMustGo at January 20, 2004 09:37 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, ya. The media were ALL OVER the Bush-Is-Stupid theme.

What day was this?

When were they not too d*mn busy pushing the Bush-Is-The-Reincarnation-Of-Winston-Churchill theme?

Posted by: Liberal Media at January 20, 2004 09:37 AM | PERMALINK

David W., I've drawn the Muskie-Dean parallel myself, mainly because Muskie lined up the endorsements of the Dem Party's heavy-hitters leading up to NH, just as Dean has done. Then Ed lost his nerve in public and it was over for him.

Personally, I think Dean is doomed, and while I haven't bought much into trashy press coverage of him, I for one will be glad to see it happen. Edwards, Clark and Kerry are all better candidates, better campaigners, and less susceptible to caricature from the pro-Bush mainstream media. Not that that will really stop the SCLM from extolling Bush as an object of idolatry and tearing apart the eventual Dem nominee.

Posted by: Demetrios at January 20, 2004 09:39 AM | PERMALINK

Mara, on NPR, played clips of everyone's speeches this morning. Dean's clip was a bit of crowd-rousing shouting which came across very badly on the radio -- hoarse bellowing.

I know part of his appeal is that he doesn't think about these things, but he has to -- he has to realize that they're going to paint him with a brown shirt if they can. If he can't realize that a media attack is coming, that it's damaging him, and how to counter it, he's the wrong nominee.

Posted by: eyelessgame at January 20, 2004 09:41 AM | PERMALINK

Troy writes: "With Bush currently at a 50% support level, which illegal drugs must you take
to come up with this judgement?"

Troy, that 50% is solid as a rock. The middle-management and NASCAR-loving white guys who like Bush are committed to him and WILL vote for him. Much of the other half pay so little attention to what's going on that they just don't care or are easily swayed by the SCLM.

Bush is a lock. Progressives need to forget about national politics and focus on building organizations in their own districts -- and, ideally, move to and take over the "conversation" in currently conservative ones.

Posted by: Hozee at January 20, 2004 09:42 AM | PERMALINK

Heres the Dean speech that some are calling 'weird' and 'angry'. The first few minutes he rally's the troops. Then he takes time to politely and reasonably congratulate his fellow democrats. Then back to a little rallying. There is nothing unusual about this speech. http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&Page=2

Posted by: sid at January 20, 2004 09:45 AM | PERMALINK

Whoever wins, remember the big point is: any one of them will be better than Bush. *grins* And given that more people vote Democratic than vote Republican, and a 50% approval rating in January does not translate into 50% of the vote come November, the only people who think Bush is "unbeatable" are the Bushies who are off in fantasyland.

Posted by: Jesurgislac at January 20, 2004 09:47 AM | PERMALINK

The most interesting bit of the exit polls:

Age Group 17-29:
Kerry 35%
Dean 25%

What happened to "rallying the base?"

Posted by: Matt at January 20, 2004 09:47 AM | PERMALINK

Bush Must Go:
I feel your pain.

In order to maintain my sanity, I have rationalized a way for a Bush win to be a good thing (in the long run). I'll share it with you and maybe it will help.

You know how alcoholics, gamblers, etc., must hit bottom before they can begin to face their problem and fix it? Well, it would appear the American public (voters & non-voters) need the same wake-up call. The only way they're going to decide to take their citizenship responsiblities seriously is when it comes ravening at their door. And that means, Bu$hCo has to win another term WITH a Republican Congress. After eight years, there will be no more Clinton to blame (except maybe for Al and his crowd); they can't blame the Democratic majority anywhere; and blaming everything on the Eternal War on Terror is going to get lame. (The French will still be around, but even so...geesh.) Then and only then, even the most muddle-headed Faux News afficionado will have the scales removed from their eyes and say, "What the fuck have I done!!??"

At that point, we may get a few decades of responsible voting and clean up the horrible mess that we were too stupid to prevent. But you have to hit bottom.

Bush. Another four years. (Let his actions catch up with him!)

Posted by: From the Ashes at January 20, 2004 09:49 AM | PERMALINK

The key weakness that Bush has is his 45% *disapproval* rating, which is higher than any other incumbent president's during the past 30 years. Many professed Republicans aren't happy with Bush either, and more than a few of them went to Iowa's Democratic caucuses last night also. Bush's political armor had plenty of chinks in it, including the fallout from not finding any of the alledged WMDs in Iraq, the loss of 4 million U.S. jobs on his watch, and the fiscal black hole his administration is leading this country into.

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 09:53 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I think you're being unfair to our favorite newspaper here (it can happen!). Dean's speech, especially in the first 5-10 minutes, was surprisingly wild-eyed and barky, at least for those of us who had never seen him speak before. Maybe the Yahoo slideshow didn't capture that very often, but the video camera sure did, and to the minor extent that a concession-speech tone can be news, the news here was that he was pretty wildly defiant. And speaking only for myself, that made me like him more, not less.

Posted by: Matt Welch at January 20, 2004 09:56 AM | PERMALINK

BushMustGo: You want to vote for Nader? You realize that if Nader had not run in 2000, we wouldn't have Bush NOW.

Is your moniker a joke? Don't you want Bush to go? A third party candidate on the left will ensure a Bush second term. Then you ought to blame yourself.

Posted by: karog at January 20, 2004 09:58 AM | PERMALINK

David W.:

If the issues you mention are so potentially deadly to Bush's prospects, why aren't his numbers lower? In particular, why does he still earn praise (in polls, anyway) for the "war on terror" when any rational person can see it has been prosecuted with radiant incompetence?

Posted by: Hozee at January 20, 2004 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Dean really hurt himself with the rant last night. I think it's critical the nonimee run to the right of Bush on the deficit. Rolling back those tax cuts is a big part of Dean's appeal. Forget the war. What's done is done and nobody but Kucinich is going to do things a whole lot differently in Iraq now. We have to cut these crazy deficits down to size. Bush is trying to triangulate by giving away the store while scaring the bejesus out of us and getting us into his phony war. It doesn't add up. Cocooning himself behind his crazy advisors works to our favor. He's painted himself into a corner on so many counts from the Iraq turnover to drugs to the debt he should be easy pickins for the right candidate. I think that candidate is Edwards.

Posted by: markg8 at January 20, 2004 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

karoq:

Had Gore been a genuine progressive AND run a competent campaign, we wouldn't have Bush now.

The way the national Democrats groveled to Bush until the mess in Iraq truly revealed itself stands as proof that Nader was right.

Posted by: Hozee at January 20, 2004 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Bush. Another four years.

I'd think the same except for the 3 or 4 40 y.o. jurists the next president is going to be appointing to the SCOTUS.

The Scalia/Thomas branch of Nutsville just can't get any bigger on that court. The (R)'s learned their lesson with Souter (a decent centrist in conservative clothing).

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Edward's speech talked about the two Americas, one for the rich, and one for the rest of us.

Dean screamed a lot.

You can imagine which one played better with voters. In any case, Karl Rove must be freaking out right now.

Posted by: skybluewater at January 20, 2004 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Hozee: Each individual voter (or nonvoter) must account to himself for their vote. If people in Florida or N.H. voted for Nader, but preferred Gore over Bush, then they share responsibility (NOT BLAME -- this is a free country) for their vote.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

David W:
Bush's political armor had plenty of chinks in it, including the fallout from not finding any of the alledged WMDs in Iraq, the loss of 4 million U.S. jobs on his watch, and the fiscal black hole his administration is leading this country into.

Chinks?
1) WMDs: Bush just said there were programs to build them and that Saddam couldn't be trusted and that Saddam was a terrorist who would share the weapons with other terrorists. And besides, isn't it a good thing that Hussein is gone? He terrorized his people! Didn't Congress vote on Bush's authorization resolution? And now we're pulling out and Iraq is it was a victorious and good thing that we did? Didn't everything change after...solemn pause...9/11?
2) Jobs? Bush created thousands of jobs!
3) Fiscal Black Hole? What are you talking about? Bush sent out millions of bribes...I mean tax rebates...worth gee, must be 100s of dollars to each of several voters. And you know most voters would rather have a new DVD player now and saddle his kid with the debt later.

There are only kinks for those who have the capacity to look beyond the sound bite. Where do you think the average voter Joe/Josephine gets his/her news from? Fox or (insert any in-depth news source here)?

Posted by: Karl Rove at January 20, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove... you forgot that "average $1000" tax cut that everyone got...

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

You know, given the amount of whining from Dean supporters here, the appellation "Deanie Babies" is a pretty apt one. But as someone who's supported at least a dozen failed candidates over my 30 years of political involvement, I guess I've gotten over feeling sorry for myself a long time ago. Please, if you really feel that Dean really is the Last True Hope for America, stay home on Election Day and feel smug as Bush gets re-elected. Hey, that'll earn the respect of your peers down at the Cynics Cafe, for whatever that's worth.

My advice is to go smoke a defeat cigar, or indulge in whatever small pleasure you like. Then consider what positive steps you can take to make things better in your estimation. Those who support other candidates aren't necessarily your enemies, and common cause can still be made with them to achieve ends that are worth achieving, like the defeat of Bush in November.

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Troy:

I voted for Nader. The "responsibility" for that lies with Gore for being a lousy candidate and, more to the point, with the Clinton/DLC crowd for turning the Democratic Party into a neoliberal cesspool.

Posted by: Hozee at January 20, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Hozee:

You really think 50% of the electorate consists of NASCAR daddies and middle management?

If I were Bush I would be worried that 45% of the polled voters would vote for ANY Democrat, and 43% would vote for Bush.

Granting that this is statistically a tie, the fact that ANY Democrat ties with Bush shows that Bush's "rock solid" base is pretty shaky.

I don't have time to worry about the snarky illiberal press anymore. Reporters nowadays belong to the upper upper middle class, which is inherently right leaning conservative. They've got their goodies (money, a college education, nice houses, jobs), so all's well with the world as far as they're concerned. Can't rock the boat or bite the hand that feeds them! There aren't very many Upton Sinclairs in the world right now.

Posted by: Carol at January 20, 2004 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Hozee: as long as you're happy with the overall outcome I see no problem with your vote.

We each get a vote[1], to use as we best see fit.

[1] Not valid in some jurisdictions

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

If the issues you mention are so potentially deadly to Bush's prospects, why aren't his numbers lower? In particular, why does he still earn praise (in polls, anyway) for the "war on terror" when any rational person can see it has been prosecuted with radiant incompetence?

The short answer to your question is that most people don't pay much attention to politics, and 9/11 really did have a major impact on the political psyche of America. A successful Democratic candidate will need to exploit Bush's weaknesses on the Iraq war while not falling prey to counter-charges about being soft on terrorism. A successful Democratic candidate will also need to exploit Bush's dangerous fiscal course while not falling victim to charges of being a tax-and-spend Democrat. It can be done, but it will take a persistant and steady effort.

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

From the Ashes:

Yeah, that's what I thought about Reagan 20-some years ago. Didn't work then. Don't expect it to now.

Posted by: Nat at January 20, 2004 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

David: what whining? Answering to the fact that many people are distorting the actual import of Dean's speech last night?

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

while not falling prey to counter-charges about being soft on terrorism

Or rooting for our enemies.

Same thing with the economy, and OBL.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

DavidW: You know, given the amount of whining from Dean supporters here, the appellation "Deanie Babies" is a pretty apt one.

Nice touch. You're another uniter, not a divider I see. Dean supporters are feeling frustration this morning because it is frustrating to watch a candidate with great ideas and a good track record of leadership get washed out, not because of his ideas or leadership, but because of voter superficiality. Why is Bush president? Is it because he is a good leader or because he knows how to stroke voter superficiality? To at least this Dean supporter, it appears the nomination is going to be won by either someone who was voting WITH Bush or someone with no track record but nifty military creds.

So yes. We're whining. And given the track record of which you speak, I suspect you have had some whining moments yourself in the past.

Obviously, most of us will suck it up and do what has to be done if Dean doesn't get the nomination, but it isn't easy when it appears that the road leads to another four years of Bush.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 20, 2004 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Lets not go on the 'liberal media' tangent too far. Just because the media is liberal doesn't mean it has to love Dean (anymore). Dean is the anti-establishment figure. The Democratic party establishment doesn't like him, and the media is much more closely aligned with the party establishment than it is with Dean.

So the LA Times bias shown in the picture doesn't do much to establish that there isn't liberal media bias. But you might want to keep it in mind when you pretend that the media typically reins in its bias.

Funny, I was just reading a most interesting article about that

Posted by: taktile at January 20, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

David: what whining?

I'm speaking to those who seemingly want to now stay home or vote for Nader, now that Dean's lost one primary battle. Sheesh...

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Dean was defiant in his speech. That's who he is, at least publicly.

At least he didn't do something stupid like claiming that trees cause more air pollution than cars, or some such nonsense, repeatedly.

That would be a killer for a candidate.....

Of course Dean lost tonite, as did Gephardt, and probably Clark, and Kerry and Edwards won.

The questions are New Hampshire.

Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992, but Tsongas did not have the resources to continue to compete, so it will get interesting.

I tend to agree with Matthew Yglesias, that there tends to be a point in the primaries where the inevitable candidate looks evitable, and I think that this is it.

Posted by: Matthew Saroff at January 20, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Pox on both your houses: "He was basically a Republican until this year...didn't even register Democrat until his campaign had already started." -- now that's hypocrisy. You'll buy Republican spin on Clark, on Kerry, on Edwards -- but Dean, no, Dean is untouchable.

I'll gladly pull the lever for Clark, Dean, Kerry, or Edwards come November. You'd do well to do the same, and stop falling prey to precisely what you're railing about.

Posted by: Kenneth G. Cavness at January 20, 2004 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Concentrate on Bush's 45% disapproval rating all you want - but it's fooling you. I disapprove of what Bush is doing on the domestic side of things and if a polster asked me, I'd say I disapprove.

That said, I still plan on voting for him. I bet a large portion of the 45% disapproval is just like me.

We think the alternative (insert Kerry/Clark/Dean here) is much worse.

When the Democrats can actually articulate and demonstrate a platform that isn't pandering to the special interests (read victims groups) and shows a tiny bit of fiscal constraint, then I'll start to listen.

BTW, yes the current congress and administration is showing much fiscal irresponsibility. But at least I can look back over the last 40 years and see which party has shown the most responsibility in that area.

Hint: It ain't the Dems.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Nice touch. You're another uniter, not a divider I see. Dean supporters are feeling frustration this morning because it is frustrating to watch a candidate with great ideas and a good track record of leadership get washed out, not because of his ideas or leadership, but because of voter superficiality.

I'd like you to meet my sister, who teaches high school history and civics in Muscatine, IA and who has been a Democrat for two decades now, and has the handshake with Bill Clinton to prove it. I spent some time talking with her about who she wanted to support in the caucuses, and she related some very good accounts from her meetings with candidates like Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. Still, she asked me about what I thought about the candidates so far as part of making her choice. In the end, she went for Edwards based on what she knew about his record and history. It wasn't a superficial decision by any means, and Dean supporters who think otherwise are shortchanging her and many other thoughtful Iowans who didn't support Dean last night.

So yes. We're whining. And given the track record of which you speak, I suspect you have had some whining moments yourself in the past.

Sure I have. I even voted Republican in my first election in 1974. Go figure... ;-)

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Nat: Yeah, Reagan was a bowel-loosening disaster but we did get the White House back after Bush I & would have kept it except for the Supreme Court. I guess people have to keep being reminded about the Dark Side. After all, the Republicans play to all the basest instincts while Speaking in Tongues. It's a hard temptation to resist for those with short-term, immediate gratification mentalities.

Gotta keep pushing the baby's hand away from the doggie's mouth...

Posted by: From the Ashes at January 20, 2004 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Troy:

I'll admit that Bush is worse than I expected; had I anticipated how bad, I probably would have held my nose and voted for Gore.

But the fact is that the Clinton crowd made a mockery of the principles of the Democratic Party, and it is because of them that the Greens attracted their following. Of course, if you still think welfare reform was a "success," you may disagree; you can have a lively discussion about it with the folks filling up our local homeless shelters.

Let's place the "responsibility" where it really belongs, shall we? I didn't abandon the Democratic Party in 2000; the Democratic Party abandoned me.

Posted by: Hozee at January 20, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

I'm speaking to those who seemingly want to now stay home or vote for Nader, now that Dean's lost one primary battle

Dean people truly want our country back. The options above won't accomplish this.

Fwiw, Clark matches my politics closer to Dean, but I will vote for Dean here in Ca. out of principle for the guy.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Dean can be very proud of moving the party, not to left, but to the point of standing up to and opposing the Republicans. If he turns out to be too much of a good thing, our eventual candidate will still be hte better for him having been in the race. It's a very exciting primary, I'll say that for it.

I don't count him out yet, though, He has a chance to retool his campaign and the money to carry on while he does it. It could still go either way.

And if Bush *does* play Dean screaming over and over in ads, the dems can play Bush saying stupid things (we invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, maybe) over and over. That would be a pretty risky strategy for them.

Posted by: Emma Anne at January 20, 2004 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Concentrate on Bush's 45% disapproval rating all you want - but it's fooling you. I disapprove of what Bush is doing on the domestic side of things and if a polster asked me, I'd say I disapprove.

FYI, it's disapproval of *Bush* himself, not disapproval with a particular stand Bush has taken on an issue. That's what makes it significant, and much harder to deal with.

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Black Oak:

When the Democrats can actually articulate and demonstrate a platform that isn't pandering to the special interests (read victims groups) and shows a tiny bit of fiscal constraint, then I'll start to listen.

As everyone knows, fiscal constraint is a Republican hallmark.

Stop. Stop. You're killin' me. (You were trying to be funny? Right?

Posted by: chris at January 20, 2004 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Are we talking about the same solid base of voters that "elected" Bush in 2000? because I'm not too worried about that... especially when his disapproval rating is so high. Theres only a 5% difference between approval and disapproval so things seem pretty polarized at the moment.

Bush is definitely not invincible, but we'll need a good candidate to beat him. I'm glad Dean isn't getting the nomination handed to him on a silver platter. The fight for the nomination will be good practice for November, I think.

Posted by: del at January 20, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

David W.,
I thought the "disapproval rating" was for overall job performance.

I.e. "Do you approve or disapprove of the job the President is doing?"

I would answer that question with "Disapprove". So would my wife. We both will probably still vote Bush though (the wife is "investigating Edwards - much to my horror).

Maybe we are saying the same thing and I'm still hung over from the 4th and 26 Packer loss to Philly.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

For Chris only.
you said:

"As everyone knows, fiscal constraint is a Republican hallmark"

I guess you didn't read the rest of my post where I said:

"BTW, yes the current congress and administration is showing much fiscal irresponsibility. But at least I can look back over the last 40 years and see which party has shown the most responsibility in that area.

Hint: It ain't the Dems."

Bleh.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Black Oak, two questions if I may:

1) Can you name any Democratic president of the last fifty years, with significant clout in Congress (i.e. one or both houses under Democratic control), who was more fiscally irresponsible than Bush?

2) Can you provide any reasoning as to why you think a Bush victory would result in greater fiscal responsibility (ideally, to the point of actual responsibility, not merely comparitive responsibility), especially in the light of current Republican control of both houses of Congress?

ObDisclaimer: This isn't an attempt to trap you or anything; I'm genuinely curious as to what motivated your remarks above.

Posted by: Anarch at January 20, 2004 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Bleh yourself. The administration draws the line on spending. Why is this administration bankrupting our country?

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe we are saying the same thing and I'm still hung over from the 4th and 26 Packer loss to Philly.

True. And the Packers would have made a game of it at least against Carolina too. I suppose I can be thankful I wasn't too distracted by the Eagles-Panthers game while playing blackjack at the Flamingo in Laughlin, NV last Sunday. But I gladly would have blown it all to watch the Pack win. Sigh...

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

An addendum to your most recent remarks: the issue I'm interested in isn't whether one particular party is more or less fiscally irresponsible than the other -- that's a debate for another time, I'd say -- but rather whether this specific individual, George W Bush, is more or less fiscally irresponsible than his predecessors and his competitors. YMMV.

Posted by: Anarch at January 20, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Anarch: I find that the theory that this admin intends to put the country through a severe financial crisis has weight.

They can't fight the 'tax & spend' redistributive New Deal at the ballot box, so they will fight it the only other way they can.

Right now they're just fattening up in preparation for the winter ahead.

The wealthy make out like bandits during severe economic distress; it's like the whole country becomes a firesale for a time.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

Black Oak - you seem to be openminded enough to read Calpundit, but just closed minded enough to not be aware that "victims groups" cause a small fraction of the damage claimed by the Repub party.

You've fallen for their spin, probably because you've grown up in the GOP. But unless you've got a seven figure net worth and value money above all else or are a religious fundamentalist, you'd be better off as a Democrat. (As if the military, oil, chemical, mining companies aren't special interests costing you MUCH more out of YOUR pocket -- and lungs -- than so-called liberal special interests ever could....).

Anyway, the facts are out there if you would remove the blinders. Oh, that's right, I forgot....Up is Down, inside is out, etc. Next.

Posted by: Truth Teller at January 20, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

One of Dean or Kerry has to be on the ticket in order to raise money until July, assuming there isn't a brokered convention. Keep repeating that to yourself.

Posted by: Justin at January 20, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Carol:

You're right -- my crack about middle-management and NASCAR dads was an unfortunate lapse into snobbery. But it stills seems to me that those who now support Bush are not going to be swayed --which is more than I can say for the rest. But maybe that's simply because I'm flabbergasted that his approval numbers rise above 30 per cent.

As to the press; I agree entirely. Class trumps all.

Posted by: Hozee at January 20, 2004 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

Calpundit "could" display two pictures, one that emphasizes, and is indicative of the rest, and the one that gives the GOP media a chubbah-

Dean IS the ONLY candidate that will put our country back on track and equal footing nationally, and internationally, and sadly, the Wurlitzer knows it...

Don't look for it to get easier for Howard in the media, due to Iowa.

They won't let up one iota, and something tells me neither will Dean.

Posted by: RF at January 20, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Anarch,

First, I don't consider running a deficit a problem. It's the continual growth in spending that concerns me.

That said, I think both Johnson and Carter were in charge when a lot of big government programs were proposed and passed.

I wish the Democratically controlled congress would have actually cut the spending they promised as part of Reagans tax cuts in the early 80's.

I think Clinton would have done more (instituted more programs) but was shackled by Gingrich and crew.

I think Bush was irresponsible by not vetoing the last budget (as well as CFR) and sending it back to congress for more debate and massaging. It would have sent the message to stop the bleeding.

The biggest hurdle I have with voting Democrat is that their track record on spending and big Government programs is worse than the Republicans.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

New Zogby poll. Ta-da. Bush at 49 percent.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=786

Posted by: fast pete at January 20, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

RF: I like Dean, but have no problems with Clark.

In fact, I think he'd make a better president than Dean, given the climate.

Dean taps into my frustration, but IMV we can't turn this country 180 degrees overnight.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Black Oak, please satisfy my curiosity..

but wouldn't a vote for Bush merely encourage the reckless spending he's doing right now?

Part of the democratic nominee's platform will be that we *can't* keep on spending like we are now. Besides, if congress stays republican then any attempts by a dem president to over-spend can be checked.

Posted by: del at January 20, 2004 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Truth Teller:
"Black Oak - you seem to be openminded enough to read Calpundit, but just closed minded enough to not be aware that "victims groups" cause a small fraction of the damage claimed by the Repub party."

I find it very hard to support a party that seems to define you by your sex/skin color/age/sexual orientation/weight etc. My take is that almost everyone is catagorized as some sort of victim to the DLC.

"You've fallen for their spin, probably because you've grown up in the GOP. But unless you've got a seven figure net worth and value money above all else or are a religious fundamentalist, you'd be better off as a Democrat."

>>I am the only conservative in a family of Democrat teachers and union members. My mother was teaching sex ed back in the early 70's. (There were many a evening where I couldn't go out after supper until we went through another "here is were babies come from and how" talk.) You can blame the Carter "malaise" of the late 70's for my conversion to conservatism.

>>I don't value money above all else, but would love to have a 7 figure net worth as it would be great for my family.

>>I'm a Lutheran - so I like hotdish.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

del,
Will it encourage more spending???? I don't think so - but no one can know for sure. I don't see how John Kerry is the solution.
Do you really think that a Democratic President is going to cause instant fiscal resposibility?

The real problem is in both houses of congress. And both sides seem to have no problems spending money.

We have a large deficit right now. Is the solution to raise taxes to collect more money? The budget is what?, 2-3 trillion dollars. I refuse to look anybody in the eye and say we need to take in more money to get rid of these deficits. We take in more than enough now.

Reduce spending. Tie growth to inflation.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Hozee wrote: "Troy, that 50% is solid as a rock."

Actually, we don't know whether it is or not. When you look at Bush's polling record since his term began, it's been a consistent downward trend interrupted by three events: 9/11, the start of the Iraq war, and the capture of Saddam Hussein. The latter two events occurred just as Bush's numbers hit 50%.

Bush's numbers are now at 50% again, but we have no way of knowing whether that 50% is solid or not. My suspicion is that he can easily lose another 5-10%.

We probably won't find out which of us is right for another couple of months, because I fully expect him to get a bit of a bounce from tonight's SOTU address.

Posted by: PaulB at January 20, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Whooops. New ABC/WaPo poll. Bush at 58%. What's next on the leftie spin machine?

Posted by: Al at January 20, 2004 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Black Oak wrote: "Do you really think that a Democratic President is going to cause instant fiscal resposibility?"

Actually, yes, Black Oak, for the simple reason that he will be facing a Republican-controlled Congress. The two will have different spending priorities and will keep each other in check, much as Clinton and the Republican Congress he faced did.

They will both get some of the pork, the spending, and programs they want, but neither will have unchecked control over the budget, which is the situation we find ourselves in today.

Posted by: PaulB at January 20, 2004 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Al, dear heart, you are aware that there has always been a roughly 10 point difference between the various polls, aren't you? That Gallup, for example, has Bush at roughly 60% at the same time that Zogby has him at 50%?

It really doesn't matter. The downward trend has been unmistakable and consistent. We have no way of knowing when he will hit bottom.

Posted by: PaulB at January 20, 2004 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

One additional point on Democratic vs. Republican spending. There was a recent study of the various state houses that found that states controlled by Democrats actually did better at controlling spending than states controlled by Democrats.

Posted by: PaulB at January 20, 2004 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

If you think that, then why haven't the minority Dems in Congress been fighting harder to reduce spending? If anything, they seem to only disagree on what to spend the money on, or worse, a few say even more money should be spent.

I've never seen any of the leadership come out and say that the Republicans are spending too much.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: And finally, what's up with the LA Times' choice of this picture of Howard Dean for today's paper?

Dean wants to break up big media. The LA Times is owned by big media. 1 + 1 = 2.

Posted by: moonbiter at January 20, 2004 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Black Oak,

your family get togethers must be a scream! I don't know what to make of your insistence that the Democratic party is the party of "minorities" and victims and "types." I come from a state that is majority Democratic and majority white--its not the poorest state, and its not the richest--and yet I see the same types of people as in other states, the same racial divisions, the same economic divisions, the same striving, struggling, working, loving, that goes on in other states that are majority Republican. How can that be?

Its obviously possible to be a Democrat--as your own family has shown you--and be a perfectly good person, a perfectly responsible person, a perfectly politically stable, thoughtful, and responsible person.

If the Democrats have, historically, been willing to use the power of a federal/centralized government to help the less fortunate that has its good and bad points. Up until now, perhaps a republican could believe that the republican party (and its poltiicans) were actually for helping the less fortunate by cutting back on a central government and its power. But under Bush et al anyone who has been paying attention--and that goes double for true conservatives--would have to acknowledge that the republicans have expanded the power of the central government to oppress the individual, have expanded the depth and reach of the central government to tax work and redistribute it to the pockets of the wealthy, and to expand entitlements and shove the debt burden onto our children at a faster rate and higher impact than any democratic government ever dreamed of doing. The party of fiscal responsiblity is not, in the end, going to be the republicans and anyone who continues voting for george bush on those grounds (as opposed to some other grounds which I think could be arguable) is just kidding themselves.

aimai

Posted by: aimai at January 20, 2004 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Hozee wrote: "The "responsibility" for that lies with Gore for being a lousy candidate"

You know, I've never understood how this meme took hold. This "lousy" candidate made up a nearly 18 point difference in the polls to win the popular vote. And he did this despite a hostile national press corps and despite the fact that Clinton's scandal was hanging around his neck.

Posted by: PaulB at January 20, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

can I conduct a poll? Who are your second, third, fourth choices of the candidates you think have a shot?

mine has solidified recently to:
2. Edwards
3. Clark
4. Kerry

With some potential for 2 and 3 to switch, but little chance for Kerry to move up. Is that typical of Dean supporters? I'm from Massachusetts, that could distort things.

Posted by: Katherine at January 20, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Whatever one thinks of Dean, his T.V. performance last night was simply incompetent, in terms of winning people over. There may be political junkies like Matt Welch who appreciate it, but the mass market, also known as the electorate, is not comprised of political junkies. Candidates who cannot achieve at least a rudimentary command of the famously cool medium of television are extremely unlikely to become President. Who knows? Maybe Dean will improve, and last night's Tazmanian Devil imitation will not be repeated, but it's getting late in the game to learn new skills, and the states coming up on the schedule in a few weeks are much more T.V.-centric, in terms of campaigning, than Iowa and New Hampshire.

Posted by: Will Allen at January 20, 2004 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Black Oak wrote: "If you think that, then why haven't the minority Dems in Congress been fighting harder to reduce spending?"

Black Oak, what makes you think they haven't? They don't control anything in Washington and are unable to set the agenda or even get media attention.

For example, were you aware of the 10-point economic program proposed by then-House Minority Leader Gephardt and Senate Minority Leader Daschle a couple of years ago? I'd be willing to bet that you are not, because the media simply did not cover it.

Or what about Democratic complaints against the 10-fold increase in pork spending?

Or the various amendments and proposals from any number of Congressional Democrats that went nowhere because they were either routinely voted down or a Committee chair would simply not add the item to the agenda?

The only weapon they have at their disposal is the filibuster in the Senate and the, so far, forlorn hope that someday, the national media will actually start reporting what's going on. Until then, our only hope is to elect a Democrat to the White House.

Posted by: PaulB at January 20, 2004 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

I am sorry to say...Mr Dean was frothing....it was a little scary.

Posted by: Jon at January 20, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

aimai,
The family get togethers are few and far between - geographical barriers are hard to overcome.

Honestly, If you and every Democrat can promise me that my vote for the Democratic canididate will get me:
1) Repeal of Campaign Finance Reform
2) Repeal of the Assault gun ban
3) Separation of Social Security revenues from the General Revenue fund
4) A balanced budget for the next 10 years
5) Deconstruction of the Dept of Education

Then I'll vote Democrat. Since most of these are the result of a Democratically controlled congress, I (unfortunately) won't be holding my breath.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

I read through some comments on Howard Dean's blog and even the Deanie babies are saying Dean's speech last night was over-the-top and embarrassing. The angry outsider act is wearing thin.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at January 20, 2004 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly, If you and every Democrat can promise me that my vote for the Democratic canididate will get me:

Would you settle for three out of five? Politics is about compromise, after all.

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Damn, Black Oak -- I'm 5 for 5 with you. Me, culture-war issues keep me away from the (R)'s like the plague.

Otherwise, I'm very centrist, like Clark. But having lived in Japan I do think single payer health insurance is the way to go -- private health insurance being tied to one's employment is just a joke, and getting insured outside of a group is a frickin' nightmare.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Randal -- Dean was LAUGHING when he was doing that spiel. Take your angry meme somewhere else.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Troy,
Heh, who says there is no common ground.

Curiously, what culture war stuff keeps you away?

I lean libertarian (kinda, just leave me the f*** alone - I can take care of myself), but have never seen anything the Dems have done that lean that way.

I shy away from one payer health care because our government can't effectively run ANYTHING.
Plus the closest thing to single payer I have experienced is military health care - and that sucked... bad.

You are correct in that coupling health care as a benefit to employment is stupid. The users are out of the loop and therefore can't influence the process. I'd like to see a real study on a system like we have for Propery/casualty/life insurance.

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Dean is finished. Iowa was a total rejection of the candidate and the message. If there was any glimmer of hope for a comeback the concession speech killed that. He will be the next to drop out of the race if Lieberman dosen't first.

Posted by: leslie at January 20, 2004 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Dean was LAUGHING when he was doing that spiel. Take your angry meme somewhere else.

Hey, go read the comments on Dean's blog for yourself. If the speech didn't go over well there then it's hard to say where it would. Except maybe at The Daily Show where the writers are probably gleefully preparing to spoof it as we speak.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at January 20, 2004 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Paul B:

Regarding Bush's numbers: yes, we'll see. I've never so hoped to be proved wrong.

Regarding Gore's lousiness: I've blocked out so much about the election I'll have to check my notes; he sure seemed lousy at the time. I don't have to check my notes on Clinton; we're living with the consequences of the neolibs' determination to erase the differences between the parties.

Posted by: Hozee at January 20, 2004 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Is John Kerry more, or less, progressive than Howard Dean? How about John Edwards vs. Dean? Clark vs. Dean? The DLC and the Democratic establishment don't even want to use the word "liberal" anymore, thus, the term "progressive." Those of us who support Howard Dean and his truly progressive vision of an American future are offended by our own Party undermining our candidate and his movement. Nader drew votes in 2000 for the same reason--Al Gore represented the same ol' establishment politics. Explain to me again why I should support a party that, at its core, seems disinterested and hostile to my principles. This concentrated attack by my own Party against my candidate, and the frontrunner to boot, is reflective of an arrogant, monolithic mindset that betrays me, others like me, and our commitment to the Democratic Party. Betrayal begets betrayal.

Posted by: BushMustGo at January 20, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Curiously, what culture war stuff keeps you away?

flag burning amendment, "Under God" (though (D)'s aren't any more stand-up on this issue), school prayer, pro-life, faith-based charities, A-A (TAMU's decision to drop legacy points and race-based points together is a compromise -- otherwise race-based A-A should be subordinate to family income), bioethics, federalization of education & drug policy, anti-evolutionism, the silly airport hypersecurity song & dance.

I am basically a raving libertarian who believes in the social contract (otherwise libertarianism will devolve into one-dollar-one-vote IMV). Plus I'm quasi-Georgist on the property tax front.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

oh yeah, pro civil-union for homosexuals, too.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

BushMustGo: Clark scored ~80% to my politics on one of those political matching quizzes, Dean slightly below at 78% (and Bush was at 20%).

If anything, Clark has laid out the progressive case better than Dean, other than not joining the race until the going got good for him.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like to see a real study on a system like we have for Propery/casualty/life insurance.

Mebbe the best policy is to attach a health tax to everything. Broccoli, negative tax. Pack of smokes, twinkies, 50c or so...

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Is John Kerry more, or less, progressive than Howard Dean? How about John Edwards vs. Dean? Clark vs. Dean?

Depends. My first experience with Dean as a politician was as a centrist governor of a small New England state. He's not anywhere near Nader on the progressive political spectrum. The closest Democratic candidate to Nader is actually Kucinich, IMO.

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

The idea being expressed here that Dean is "finished" as a result of Iowa is ridiculous. Most Americans are barely paying attention to what's going on in the primaries. Whatever the reasons for his showing, and whatever the nature of his reaction, he has sufficient time to deal with what needs to be dealt with (whether he will or not is another question).

I'm not surprised but sorry to see Gephardt exit. We need more candidates who will insist on introducing to the campaign ideas like his for an international minimum wage (although what the world really needs are international labor unions).

Posted by: Hozee at January 20, 2004 01:01 PM | PERMALINK

Troy,
Interesting. We'd probably agree on the majority of that list.

I think that Republicans give a lot of lip service to most of that stuff. Ever notice that most of it goes nowhere? I do.

I lean Republican because most of that list never gets anywhere.

Enlighten me. What's a "quasi-Georgist" on property taxes?

Posted by: Black Oak at January 20, 2004 01:07 PM | PERMALINK

Troy wrote:

"I am basically a raving libertarian who believes in the social contract"

I'm going to have to steal that from you as a way of describing myself.

Want to start a party? :)

Posted by: rufus at January 20, 2004 01:15 PM | PERMALINK

I am basically a raving libertarian who believes in the social contract

Exactly.

Posted by: Howard Dean at January 20, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINK

Georgist is from Henry George, a reformer who wrote _On Poverty_ in the late 19th century.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

Basically the theory goes that unimproved land, being the product of no-one, belongs in usufruct to "the community", and those who wish to monopolize usage of real property owe compensation back to "the community".

It's basically a property tax on the unimproved value of land. I find the philosophy morally unassailable. . .

"To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it." -- David Lloyd George

I find "geolibertarianism" to be a more workable utopia than pure libertarianism.

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINK

Because it's a funny and telling photo.

And, Kevin, why did YOU post the pic?

Um. Pot, Kettle?

Posted by: bj at January 20, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINK

(Georgism also extends to mineral extraction rights, IP, and non-real property such as spectrum allocation)

Posted by: Troy at January 20, 2004 01:23 PM | PERMALINK

Congratulations on coining the new slogan--

"Dean: He Doesn't USUALLY Look Crazed!"

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at January 20, 2004 01:26 PM | PERMALINK

Is there any other Dean picture that captures the most important thing that happened to him yesterday?

AAAAEEEEEEAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!

Posted by: Reg at January 20, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding BlackOak's description of his background and "status", I think Democrats do themselves a tremendous DISservice by making broad generalizations about Republicans (all fat cats, or bigots, or Bible thumpers, or selfish and insensitive to those in real need, etc). Not all Democrats think alike or have similar backgrounds, and the very same thing is true of Republicans.

Until the shadings are appreciated and the value system variations are understood, you will continue to be puzzled by why some people vote for Republicans. Just bashing away as though the stereotypes were valid will be futile and discouraging to Democrats.

The party won't have to appeal to every Republican or to every Bush-leaning independent in order to win an election. Because among the 50% who support Bush there is a significant fraction that support him only to the point where some "better alternative" is presented in terms that are appreciated by them. Who is trying to reach out to them in an organized way in order to find their "hot buttons"? (By the way, successful companies do this in order to gain market share).

Sometimes I get the feeling that Democrats write off all Republicans as being diametrically opposed to virtually everything that the majority of Democrats support. That just is not the case. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats based on two factors (1) the character of the candidate, and (2) aspects of their positions that I think are most important to the country at a point in time.

Most people assume I am a Republican (based on my demographics), and I don't talk much about politics generally. I'm quite independent of party affiliation. I have donated to candidates of both parties, praised and criticized candidates from both. But, no one has every shown much interest in what would influence me to vote for a Democratic candidate. Nor to understand what makes me swing from one side to another.

I have not decided who to vote for in November. There is no reason for me to do so yet; there is plenty of time for that later. The process I will follow is to cross off possible candidates one at a time, over a period of time. If it turns out that the two parties' nominees are both on the "crossed off" list when November comes around, I will cast a conscience vote (eg, a Bradley or McCain in 2000) and in that sense I HAVE voted --- by saying, "I would prefer neither of these two;try harder" (as I did in 2000).

Posted by: Terry Ott at January 20, 2004 02:37 PM | PERMALINK

I see a lotta comments about who or what is progressive vs conservative.

In America, the starting point was Jeffersonians vs Hamiltonians. Here is how they are different.

Jeffersonians were small government, progressive taxation.

Hamiltonians were big government, flat taxers.

In the last 20 years, a period of relative stability, this differentiation has borne true again, regardless of the mis-conception of Reagan populists.

Reaganites flatten taxes and grow government; and they do not realize what they do and the result is huge public debt.

Clintonites pursue progressive taxes and government shrinks, perhaps not intentionally; although Clinton was too smart not to realize what he does.

I suggest one might define centrist government as one where everybody pays taxes according to the government services they really use; and what you end up with is something closer to Clinton than Reagan.

Where is Dean? He is a flat taxer, big government; as are most of the universal health care populists. Dean is closer to Bush than to Clark or Edwards; Deaniacs will scream, "not true" but as the Iowa caucuses show, Deaniacs are about as stupid as Reaganites. Listen to the State of the Union, and watch the big government proposals that sound similiar to Deanisms.

Clark and Edwards, are progressive taxers, and therefore a small government. Edwards is probably very close to a Jeffersonian small government , progressive taxer than the others. Both Clark and Edwards know their policy moves us toward smaller government, they are too close to Clinton to be ignorant of that fact.

Wall Street and populist conservatives cling to the fiction that flat taxes, and tax cuts lead to smaller government. Actually just the opposite, as we now know.

What leads to optimum government is making people pay exactly for the government they demand. Reaganite conservatives actually provide more government services to the rich than the rich pay for, though I am still looking for a study to back up my claim.

Environmental populists are generally flat taxers, and big government. However, here the irony is that a smaller government would lead to less consumption.

A very small government libertarian, like myself, wants to push government to extreme small levels, using a very progressive tax. I want this, not because it is optimum, but because Reaganites have grown government so big with flat taxes that we need a counter move for a while. Hopefully, we can eventually end up with the optimum government of Clark or Edwards.

Liberals are populalist libertarians who mistakenly believe that we can have big government and progressive taxes. They are oppositely stupid from the Reaganite conservative populists.

Communists are flat taxers in the extreme, take Bush for another four years and you will have something very close to sovietism.

Europeans have simply gone nuts with a strong mix of flat taxes and progressive taxes, leading so something deadly that no one can accurately describe; except that Deaniacs wants to take us there.

Posted by: Matt Young at January 20, 2004 02:59 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think the Dean picture is Hitler-esque. It reminds me of a union leader at a strike meeting. And his style is rather consistent with that image as well, from what I have seen.

Presidents, in my opinion, should not claim to "fighting for" anybody, for any one constituency. Congressmen do that; lobbiests do that. Presidents set a tone, guide, lead, enforce laws (preferably evenhandedly), and put people in positions of responsibility. Period.

The image of a President is entirely missing from what Dean is projecting ... the calm, rational, visionary, and statesmanlike persona that I (and I think many others) look for. He's off my list of "possibles".

Posted by: Terry Ott at January 20, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINK

>>I suspect Dean's scream is going to get played again, and again, and again, and again over the next few days.

And they say the media just reflects what viewers want? Again and again and ... well, they don't have to. You have to ask, why they are.

National media pundcracy, though spectacularly wrong (just like us bloggers), fucks up the process.

As I've said, i've been paying attention and I have NO idea what Kerry's postions are or any great ideas he has. If I lived in Iowa, I might.

The only thing I know about him - not counting bio - is that he voted for war and now feels and says he was misled.

Firefighters, whose support he had, are a formidable bunch.

Lastly, good stories over ideas rule rule rule.

Well, except I still can't figure out how Bush "won." One answer is that his "victory" went beyond both story and ideas to so called legality.

I'm stepping back and taking a second look at Edwards.

The problem with all this shit btw, and my overall point - it's not the people who have decided they don't like Dean. It is the media's portrayal - and Dean's need to lay to the media that cost him.

A need shared by every other candidate, I hasten to add.

Sad.

Posted by: Andrew | BYTE BACK at January 20, 2004 03:56 PM | PERMALINK

Dean looks like a preacher in the photo. And he might be a little nutty, McCain-like, not Perot-like. Still wouldn't bother me a bit. Look who is driving the boat right now.

Posted by: andrew at January 20, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin writes: And finally, what's up with the LA Times' choice of this picture of Howard Dean for today's paper? Are they trying to make him look like Hitler?

Having had to listen to the far left froth about BusHitler for so long, it's laughable to hear Kevin complain about this.

If the LA Times really wanted to make Governor Dean look like Hitler, they would have asked moveon.org to do the job.

Posted by: Steve White at January 20, 2004 04:08 PM | PERMALINK

And they say the media just reflects what viewers want? Again and again and ... well, they don't have to. You have to ask, why they are.

You didn't hear that bizarre scream last night either, I take it. Maybe I'm just replaying it in my head instead of hearing it again on the radio. It may be that it won't have to be repeated again and again and again to register with the body politic...

Posted by: David W. at January 20, 2004 04:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Bush looked like he was completely, 100%, Grateful Dead concert level stoned"

Does he ever look otherwise?

"One of Dean or Kerry has to be on the ticket in order to raise money until July, assuming there isn't a brokered convention. Keep repeating that to yourself."

yes, everyone has to remember this.

Posted by: MattB at January 20, 2004 04:38 PM | PERMALINK

There’s something funny about Black Oak’s desire to separate the Social Security system from the General Fund. Why is it that Republicans are now all gung ho for this kind of separation after two decades of using the excess taxes as a slush fund? Could it be that a day of reckoning is coming when the General Fund will be required to pay back its massive debt (over a trillion dollars as of today)? So, let me get this straight, it is okay for the General Fund to spend (by the time we are done) four decades borrowing from the Trust Fund, but the General Fund should never support Social Security?

Having had to listen to the far left froth about BusHitler for so long, it's laughable to hear Kevin complain about this.

Um…Mr. White, Limbaugh is on the phone, he wants to talk to you about Hitlery Clinton – for a decade. Come back when the Rodhams have demonstrated their willingness to financially back Nazis, while we are at war with them. Until then, there’s an impolite acronym I’ve seen, I’m not sure what it means but STFU.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at January 20, 2004 04:47 PM | PERMALINK

The anger propaganda worked quite well against McCain in 2000, and it seems to have worked against Dean as well.

Posted by: MichaelJ at January 20, 2004 05:25 PM | PERMALINK

Given that Bush is virtually unbeatable

Huh?????? Kimster......wake up!

Country on its way to bankruptcy.....Afghanistan back under warlords, drugs their biggest product....job "growth" virtually non-existent.........Iraq a fraud from start to finish...misleading us into war....stonewalling the 9/11 commission....outing a CIA agent....deceit, vindictiveness, greed.....traiterous companies evading taxes.....pension system near collapse...wages stagnant...."new" jobs paying 21% less than the ones lost........

Jeez....if this is what "virtually unbeatable" looks like, I am horrified to think what it would be like if you thought Bush was "vulnerable"!!!

Posted by: marty at January 20, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINK

A rational Lori Thantos writes: Um…Mr. White, Limbaugh is on the phone, he wants to talk to you about Hitlery Clinton – for a decade. Come back when the Rodhams have demonstrated their willingness to financially back Nazis, while we are at war with them. Until then, there’s an impolite acronym I’ve seen, I’m not sure what it means but STFU.

If you wish to Rush, Lori, more power to you. Your point about the Rodhams (which one?) is simply incomprehensible so I'll leave it.

And unless/until Kevin asks me not to post here, you're stuck with me :-)

Posted by: Steve White at January 20, 2004 08:47 PM | PERMALINK

Leno tonite: one joke about Kerry, 6 or 8 jokes about Dean's whacko speech and how it made him look nuts. There's what people took away from his speech.

Posted by: Al at January 20, 2004 08:47 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, my intent was not to get you to stop posting. Sincerely. But to claim that somehow anonymous individuals referring to Bush’s connections to the Third Reich (you have heard of his grandfather – Prescott and his financial backing of the Nazis, haven’t you? If not, that explains why you were confused by my point; there is no such history for “Hitlery” Rodham Clinton) are equivalent to a national broadcaster who is so much a part of the mainstream Republican Party that they made him an honorary member of the 104 congress is just plain dishonest.

In plain (if referential) English – how can you complain about the mote in your brother’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own? STFU was in reference to complaints about behavior that your side has engaged in for more than a decade - and not merely on the fringes; not a demand that you cease contributing entirely.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at January 20, 2004 09:34 PM | PERMALINK

No Al, that’s what Republican operatives like Leno took away, you have to understand the difference.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at January 20, 2004 09:35 PM | PERMALINK

Ultimately it remains way too early to base much on Iowa at all. The schedule plays to the more conservative & militaristic of the Dems for the earliest primaries/caucuses.

I never bought into the young voter revolution theme of the Dean campaign; I mean no rudeness but the young often do the grunt work in campaigns with 'the buzz'. As a physician, his natural base is the seniors, and his bedside manner is very good. He simply forgot to use it in his final two weeks.

My own CW says Kerry and Dean offer experience and that will keep both in the race. Kerry & Edwards' margins were outsized because the 15% rule sent many Gephardt supporters to the top two. Dean has good instincts and won't fall into the trap Gephardt set again.

This race will come down to Super Tuesday or the week after, before a clear frontrunner emerges.

What I found most discouraging of all was the Oregonian's preview of the SOTU tonight. They indicated Bush's approval rating was 56% and said at this point in a Presidency it was the highest since Eisenhower in '56.

That's where many of the undecideds get their news and if they read it, it must be true.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden at January 20, 2004 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Tonight a bunch of the knoxville Dean supporters had a short meeting to coordinate our GOTV efforts. TN early voting has started and our primary is Feb 10, which isn't that far awy anymore. After the meeting I spoke with one of our members that had gone up to Iowa and was present at the speak that has everyone in a tizzy. Three things: 1) The only mike that was on was Dean's. He was shouting into the mike, inorder to be heard over the crowd. Unless you were there you wouldn't know or appreciate how loud they were. 2) Dean's hand waving and finger pointing - He was pointing at the state signs that some folks/groups in the crowd had fashioned. 3) The CW was that Dean would walk away with Iowa - 3rd place - CW says be somber, serious and all. Instead Dean fired up the troops and there is another Army on the way to NH.
"Angry Dean" is the MEME that the rightwing echo chamber has created and the SCLM is playing into because they are to lazy and scared to buck the CW (their ratings might suffer). That's why this has generated so much "buzz." Soon it will be Kerry's turn. After his time in Vietnam he became a vocal opponent of that war - rightwingers will a have a field day with that. He attended a conference that addressed US military atrocities committed in Vietnam, collaborated with Jane Fonda in antiwar activites, and so on. I do not fault him for this but others will and they will cut into him like yankee pot roast. In addition, there's his very real liberal voting record and the fact that he did not vote for the first Gulf War but did vote the second one - so much for his foreign policy expertise. Kerry's electabilty is not a sure thing. I suspect that we (dems) are being suckered - Rove woke up to the fact that Dean was a serious contender and is now trying to get the limelight on some else (Kerry). They will then go easy until after the convention in Boston when the gloves come off, the knives are pulled and Kerry gets sliced and diced like cheap sandwich meat.

Posted by: Stephen Muehleisen at January 21, 2004 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not a Dean supporter. But it's a revealing measure of how robotic and sedated we expect our politicians to be that Dean's impassioned speech creates such a controversy. He was emotional, big deal.

Posted by: Dean Blobaum at January 22, 2004 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

A little foolishness, enough to enjoy life and a little wisdom to avoid the errors, that will do

Posted by: Heyden Jenny Steinman at May 2, 2004 03:23 PM | PERMALINK

'May you live all the days of your life.' - Swift

Posted by: Cooper Ria at May 3, 2004 02:37 AM | PERMALINK

Insanity is forgetting to believe a few lies.

Posted by: Wilson Vanessa at May 20, 2004 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.

Posted by: Kolker Danielle at June 30, 2004 07:04 AM | PERMALINK

Mom Get Fucked Porn Star Search Sex Pranks Flight Attendent She Loves Big Cocks Slut Bus Splats Movies The Thrill Hammer FOXY BRUNETTES BACKSEAT BANGERS TRAILER

Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 08:02 PM | PERMALINK

free web cam free live web cam free chat with web cam free sex web cam adult free web cam free nude web cam free girl web cam free web cam site free porn web cam free gay web cam free xxx web cam free teen web cam free web cam chat room free amateur web cam free web cam pic free adult live web cam free adult web cam chat live sex web cam free free personal web cam free live nude web cam free live girl web cam free live web cam chat web cam live free personal cam free view web free web cam picture free sex chat web cam free online web cam cam free viewing web free web cam software free lesbian web cam free web cam community cam free watch web free web cam video free live web cam site free web cam host free sexy web cam free web cam hosting free live web cam porn free naked web cam free web cam of woman free home web cam free live xxx web cam free adult web cam site free nude web cam chat cam free totally web cam free movie web cam chat free teen web free web cam chat site free asian web cam free black web cam voyeur web cam free free streaming web cam free web cam pussy free live teen web cam free web cam show free gay live web cam free private web cam cam free web yahoo web cam free ware cam chatting free web cam free gallery web free teen web cam pic free nude teen web cam free live web cam show free male web cam cam free live web woman cam free now web cam free membership no web cam college free web free live web cam amateur access cam free web cam dating free web free shemale web cam free sex web cam site cam free sample web cam download free web cam free room web cam free no registration web free adult web cam community free gay web cam chat cam chat free girl web cam free girl girl live web free hidden web cam free naked woman web cam free erotic web cam free hardcore web cam cam code display free web cam free mature web free web cam broadcast cam free preview web cam chat free online web free college girl web cam free live lesbian web cam cam free skin web free gay male web cam cam free man web free porn web cam chat cam free service web free nude woman web cam free web cam sex show free sex web cam video free adult sex web cam free online sex web cam free teen sex web cam free gay sex web cam free web cam sex amateur free private web cam sex home web cam sex free free web cam cyber sex free couple sex web cam free lesbian sex web cam free hardcore sex web cam cam free sex watch web free sex web cam pic cam free movie sex web cam free free sex web cam free sex view web free sex web cam sample free black sex web cam free nude web cam pic free amateur nude web cam cam free nude sexy web cam free non nude web free nude web cam site free adult nude web cam free nude man web cam free nude web cam show cam free live nude web woman free nude beach web cam free nude gay web cam free nude web cam at home free nude web cam picture cam free nude preview web cam free nude video web cam free girl hot web free web cam teen girl cam free girl pic web cam free girl online web black cam free girl web cam free girl watch web free adult girl web cam asian cam free girl web cam free girl video web cam free girl picture web cam free girl web young cam cam free free girl web web cam free girl totally web cam free girl show web cam free gallery girl web cam free girl real web cam free free girl web cam free live online web free live streaming web cam cam free live web free home live web cam cam free live secretfriends-com web cam free live totally web free live sexy web cam free live naked web cam cam free live watch web cam free live view web cam cam free free live web web cam feed free live web cam free live private web cam free live naked web woman cam community free live web amsterdam cam free live web cam free host live web free live pussy web cam asian cam free live web hot live free web cam cam free live now web cam female free live web cam free free live web amateur cam free live web xxx animal cam free live web cam free hidden live web cam free live preview web free live voyeur web cam cam ebony free live web cam free live password web cam free live shemale web free xxx web cam chat free web cam video chat cam chat free lesbian web cam chat free private web cam chat free program web cam chat free web cam chat free naked web cam chat free naughty web cam chat free web yahoo cam chat free totally web cam chat free software web cam chat free kid web cam chat free line web free amateur web cam and chat cam chat free free web cam chat college free web cam chat community free web cam chat free msn web best cam chat free web free porn web cam site free teen porn web cam cam com free porn web cam free online porn web free adult porn web cam cam free porn video web cam free porn web xxx free amateur porn web cam free gay porn web cam cam free porn watch web free xxx web cam site cam free teen web xxx free adult xxx web cam free amateur xxx web cam free teen web cam gallery cam free teen video web free gay teen web cam cam free site teen web cam free teen web young free amateur teen web cam free teen web cam picture free amateur web cam site free amateur adult web cam free gay amateur web cam free amateur web cam pic free sex cam free live sex cam free sex cam chat free live sex cam chat free sex video cam free sex spy cam free online sex cam free amateur sex cam free hidden sex cam free teen sex cam free adult sex cam free live sex chat web cam free gay sex cam cam com free live sex web free home sex cam free live teen sex cam free sex voyeur cam free lesbian sex cam free asian sex cam com cam free sex free private sex cam free sex cam site free nude sex cam free live sex video cam free sex cam sample free live web cam sex show adult cam chat free sex web free sex cam show anal cam free live sex sex cam chat free room sex web free live sex cam feed cam free home private sex web cam free movie sex cam free lesbian live sex amsterdam cam free sex cam free sex watch cam free livefeeds sex cam free latina sex free live sex cam show adult cam free live sex free hardcore sex cam amsterdam cam free live sex free couple sex cam free hot sex cam cam free membership no sex free porn sex cam free sex spy cam pic cam free gratis sex cam free live sex site web free streaming sex cam live sex voyeur cam for free girl web cam live web cam girl college girl web cam teen girl web cam hot web cam girl web cam girl pic young web cam girl cam chat girl web web cam girl picture black cam girl web asian girl web cam girl home web cam cam girl web yahoo girl personal web cam real web cam girl cam girl online web school girl web cam cam chat girl live web cam girl high school web web cam girl gallery cam girl video web cam girl hot live web cam girl little web cam college girl live web cam girl in web cam cam girl web cam girl horny web teenage girl web cam cam caught girl web web cam girl archive cam girl naughty web japanese girl web cam girl private web cam cam girl msn web cam girl photo web arab cam girl web cam cute girl web cam fat girl web cam girl indian web cam flashing girl web girl web cam site cam girl stripping web cam girl goth web cam girl watch web cam free girl streamate web cam dorm girl web cam girl girl web cam girl gratis web girl web cam adult cam flexing girl web cam free girl girl web cam girl gone web wild collage girl web cam cam girl korean web cam free girl view web alone cam girl home web cam canadian girl web cam girl russian web cam girl single web top 100 girl web cam teen girl web cam pic cam girl voyeur web cam girl home live web cam girl latina web cam french girl web cam girl secret web action cam girl web australian cam girl web cam girl strip web cam free girl preview web cam free girl horny web cam girl stripping teen web cam girl pic web young cam girl preteen web cam girl talk web cam girl index web cam girl kissing web cam girl local web cam girl teen web young web cam sex live sex web cam web cam sex chat teen sex web cam sex gratis web cam amateur web cam sex gay sex web cam live web cam sex chat adult sex web cam adult cam direct sex web web cam sex chat room video sex web cam sex web cam site home sex web cam web cam sex show cam online sex web live sex show web cam web cam cyber sex asian sex web cam web cam sex pic lesbian web cam sex hot sex web cam couple sex web cam cam college sex web cam sex web yahoo cam hidden sex web amsterdam cam sex web black sex web cam web cam sex com cam membership no sex web live adult sex web cam web cam sex gratuit cam pal pay sex web cam friend secret sex web adult cam chat sex web free sex porn web cam oral sex web cam cam having people sex web cam dating sex web cam live secretefriends sex web xxx sex web cam cam msn sex web nude sex web cam cam sex watch web cam cam free sex web group sex web cam cam sample sex web sex voyeur web cam cam couple live sex web com cam sex web free nude sex web cam

Posted by: Andrew at July 1, 2004 01:25 PM | PERMALINK

5292 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 05:08 PM | PERMALINK

646 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

Posted by: texas holdem at August 9, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Best XXX Sites -
Teen Cash -
Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat -
Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders -
Oral Sex -
Anal Sex -
Group Sex -
Cum Shot -
Free Porn -
Free Sex

Posted by: Den at August 10, 2004 05:00 AM | PERMALINK

4970 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 05:50 PM | PERMALINK

2173 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

5517 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 02:14 PM | PERMALINK

7340 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 03:19 PM | PERMALINK

5022 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

Posted by: play blackjack at August 16, 2004 06:58 PM | PERMALINK

8940 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich and then again there is always beer

Posted by: Krankenversicherung private at August 17, 2004 09:43 PM | PERMALINK

3389 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto

Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

7208

http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model
cars at http://www.diecastdot.com

Posted by: Adult DVD at August 19, 2004 07:33 PM | PERMALINK

6584 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINK

5202 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Totally off the mark, as usual. You're just wrong, dude!

Posted by: storage area network at August 25, 2004 05:57 PM | PERMALINK

1793 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 06:52 PM | PERMALINK

Nice post, was an interesting read, even though I don't agree with it totally. Love your blog design.

Posted by: Dish Network at August 26, 2004 09:03 PM | PERMALINK