Robinson: There are passages in your book in which you just seethe, just seethe, and the people you're angry at are your own colleagues back in Washington—the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense. And you argue that they repeatedly obstructed your efforts to prosecute this war….Give us one example, the trouble you had getting the Apache helicopters. Describe that incident.

General Clark: Well actually the Apaches were suggested to me by the Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff, Hugh Shelton.

Robinson: All right.

General Clark: And he said, could you use them? I said, well, yes, I'll take a look at them. It's a basic rule, when you're a commander, and you have a military problem and somebody offers you resources, you try to use those resources. And it's your job as a commander to use them correctly, not to have them destroyed, not to put them in excessive risk, not to misuse them, but, you know, if they're going to offer you the resources, you're going to try to use them. So we took a look at it, I said yes I'd like to use them. He said well just send me in a concept paper. I sent in a concept paper, it was, I think the day before we started the campaign, or two days before we started the campaign. Didn't hear anything for a couple days. I thought I'd get a call back the next day saying okay, got it, you know, you're ready to go. Nothing happened. I--three or four days I called, I said look, you know, what's happening. The Staff said, we don't understand your concept. I said, what don't you understand about the concept, I mean, they take off from friendly territory, they fly over enemy lines, and they use their long range missiles at night against enemy forces in the rear, I mean, that's the doctrine of the Apache. And they've got all the support they need, the Command and Control, I mean, what's not to understand. They said, well, we need more details. So this delayed it--we put in a much more detailed package. This is basic doctrine…

Robinson: And this was after the campaign had already begun?

General Clark: This is after the campaign has begun. This is we're actually in…

Robinson: In battle.

General Clark: …and--and--and their--so finally about seven days into the campaign, I still haven't gotten an answer on this and it just so happens that the Secretary of Defense calls and I talk to the Secretary and as we finish the main reason why he called, I say, Mr. Secretary I need your help on these Apaches. And it's been back there--we're seven days, eight days into the war and I still don't have an answer on them. And he says I don't know anything about it. I said but your staff has it, they're sitting on it back there. So he says, I'll check on that. So two nights later I have a video teleconference. The Army comes up with twenty-four reasons why the Apache shouldn't be used in Kosovo. And they range everything from, gee, you know, they're painted green and they might give people the impression that we're going into a ground war to there's no targets, how could they get over the mountains, the pilots might not be ready to go. I mean, they--they range from soup to nuts. And we eventually did get the Apaches deployed, but not without a lot of delay. And as a result of the video teleconference, the Army pressures caused the task force to grow from about eighteen hundred people to about five thousand five hundred people. As various people suggested to the Army, well aren't you worried about this and don't you need back-up on this, and do you have enough of this--and so what could have been a ten day deployment turned into a thirty day deployment.

Robinson: You write throughout the campaign the Pentagon was distracted by its preference for focusing on North East Asia and the Persian Gulf, part of the National Military Strategy. Let me try putting this construction on it. It occurred to me as I read your book that they treated you as the odd man out because you were the odd man out. All of you had sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Back at the Pentagon, they insisted on focusing on what could become genuine threats to this republic, and there's Clark over there, running an operation that involves chiefly European interests, he's got to get his plans approved by everybody--I mean he's passing stuff to the people from Luxemburg for goodness sake, they've got to clear on stuff before he acts, this is just not a direct threat--it's a side show. In their minds at some level, they're a sideshow. And what I'm suggesting is that in some sense, they were right.

General Clark: Well they were correct in--in a way, in the sense that the U.S. military command structure is really not set up to work with our Allies. And this is continuing to come out today as you continue to hear these sort of leaks of unilateralism coming out of the United States. And there's no doubt about it, people in the Armed Forces believe that we've got the best Armed Forces in the world. We do. Nobody else can hold a candle to us. And so if we bring our allies in, their equipment's inferior, they're probably not as well trained, and, you know, it's a--it's nice to be proud of your own organization, but the simple fact is that for reasons of national strategy and diplomacy and influence in the world and shaping the world the way we want it to be shaped, we have to operate with allies. And the Pentagon command structure was set up fundamentally to operate unilaterally. So there wasn't any way to feed in Allied concerns to the Committee of the Joint Chief's of Staff who sat in judgment on these requests. A lot of discussion during the war about war by committee, and people say, oh, this is bad, you know, there should be a commander in charge, not a war by--and they blamed NATO, but the committee wasn't NATO. The constraints imposed by the Committee of the Joint Chief's of Staff were more worrisome to the conduct of the war then the constraints imposed by having to coordinate with other countries…

Robinson: Second-guessing the…Pentagon?

General Clark: Exactly.

Robinson: So what's the lesson?

General Clark: Well the lesson is, I think that we've got to have a new way of looking at the world….This is a time when we should be supporting our allies, helping our friends working to reinforce those that share our values. It should be an opportunity-based strategy rather then a threat- based strategy and we need the chain of command in the armed forces and inside the Pentagon to be able to focus on those opportunities, not just react to threats.

Apparently Deaniacs are still going door to door, even in my small town about 1 hour from Manchester. I arrived home from shopping today to find a large yellow manila envelope in my mailbox. Sealed with a giant Dean campaign sticker, the envelope contained:

*1 DVD titled "Howard Dean for America--Fulfilling the Promise of America"

*1 nicely designed trifold color brochure proclaiming that "This is a campaign to unite and empower Americans . . .to move the insiders out and let the people in!" The brochure features such positive messages as "I know what's wrong with America." My favorite excerpt: "As a medical doctor, I have been trained to diagnose an illness and prescribe the proper treatment. I have frequently applied the same techniques as a Governor."

*2 copies of NH newspaper endorsements (the Sunday Sentinel, whatever that is, and newspapers of the Salmon Press, whatever that is).

*1 page titled "Why Howard Dean is the Best Candidate to Defeat Bush," with lists of his supposed advantages and some old pre-Iowa charts comparing him to other candidates in terms of popularity.

If I weren't an Evil Conservative, I would feel a little sorry for Dean. I think he knows he is in deep quicksand. But at least he's fighting.

One of the more entertaining spectacles of the modern era is the way in which our ruling class so successfully combines barbarism and priggishness. Here are two examples via blogger Scott Burgess. The first, for barbarism, concerns something called the Sonning Prize, which is supposedly awarded for an “outstanding contribution to the advancement of European civilization.” Previous winners have included Winston Churchill, Albert Schweitzer, Niels Bohr, Bertrand Russell and Vaclav Havel. Now they will be joined by Mona Hatoum, a Palestinian artist living in London.

Mr. Burgess has been checking out her oeuvre. Who could not be impressed by efforts such as Roadworks? Burgess quotes one commentator : "By tying a pair of military-type Doc Martens boots to her bare ankles and dragging them behind her in the street, Hatoum created a metaphor for the frustration and helplessness characteristic of the times."

Roll over Raphael.

And then there’s the priggishness, also via the good Mr. Burgess:

A art gallery owned by a local authority in the North of England has removed a 19th century painting because some people might find it "demeaning to animals" and "offensive." The Monkey's Music Lesson depicts a monkey wearing a fez and reading from a musical score. According to the Daily Mail (link not available):

"... the eight gallery trustees decided it and the other [simliar] paintings should be taken down while 'research' is conducted into their origin.Gallery manager Graham Riding said: 'Opinions on such works may have changed and some people now find them demeaning to animals and possibly offensive'."

Burgess notes that the article makes no mention of whether any monkeys have complained as of yet.

But if the simians, a lazy and complacent crew (with seven million years of pathetically slow evolutionary progress behind them, I’m not expecting much) don’t get a move on, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals almost certainly will – so long, that is, as they are not too busy defending the rights of maggots, roaches and ants.

From a reader:

Good morning, Mr. Goldberg. My name is [Name withheld] and I've enjoyed your columns for about a year now (also managed to catch your spot on The Daily Show. Keep up the good work). Anyway, just wanted to give a perspective on Wesley Clark from the active-duty side of things. I'm currently a major in the U.S. Air Force (flying special ops helicopters in [withheld], if you're curious) and nothing that Clark has said or done has surprised me in the least. Why? Because he acts just like the vast majority of general officers that it has been my displeasure to deal with during my 16 years in the U.S. military. Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment. Here's a couple of reasons why that is so: - Generals are ambitious in the same way that wolverines are aggressive. It's their defining trait. A few years ago, the Army Command and Staff College ask during an informal survey "Would your division's commanding general throw his own mother under a bus if it would get him promoted?" 60% of the majors and colonels replied "Not only yes, hell yes!" I know that running for President pretty much demands a nauseating degree of ambition but this kind of hyper-careerism can't be healthy, in my opinion. - Generals are dull. I don't mean this in the cant-tell-a-good-joke kind of way. I mean the anti-intellectual, zero-curiousity, hasn't-read-a-real-book-in-years kind of dull. Wesley Clark obviously had (and still probably has) no freakin' idea who Michael Moore is or what he stands for. All he knows is that Moore is famous and other Democrats like him. Hell, Clark doesn't even know anything about CAPPS II, the system he was supposedly advocating as a board member! I could go and on on this theme. Take it from me, most generals are as sharp as a bowling ball and Clark is no exception. - Generals are arrogant. Generals truly believe that they are completely right 100% of the time and woe to those underlings who demonstrate that this isn't so. This trait is what makes generals so dangerous. They will ignore sound advice and do the stupidest things imaginable, all because "Well, I'm a general, dammit, I know what I'm doing and. . . ugh, what was the question again?" Generals can be damn near unreasonable when they get their minds made up and it's almost impossible to get them to see an alternative way of doing things. Scary stuff to see in the flesh. Hopefully I'll never have to experience the Wes Clark brand of hubris. - Generals are dishonest. This is a tricky charge to throw out, but it's the sad truth. I've seen more out-and-out lies from general officers than any other people in the military. In a weird way, they are just like professional politicians in this regard. They act like the main character from "Memento", they can't remember a @#$% thing they said or wrote older than 15 minutes ago. If it wasn't so frustrating, it might be funny. Once again, just compare anything Clark says now to anything that came out of his mouth one year ago. Weird, huh? That's all for me. Pet Cosmo for me, take care of yourself and keep up the good fight. The troops are behind you guys at NRO all the way!

[Name/location withheld]

From an email a friend of mine -- who served over there -- sent to Michael Moore:

Dear Mike: In 1999 I was in Bosnia , an American with the UN mission. I got to dig up some bodies of people whom I didn't know. Guess What? You could tell the farmers bodies because their rubber boots don't rot away like the rest of their clothing. The metal wire and 7.62mm shell casings also last. Sometimes the skull is shattered or missing, generally because something big hit it. Ever spend an afternoon in a garbage dump looking for victims of atrocities? You brainless bag of [redacted]. I know hundreds of human beings who are only alive because the US went to war in a faraway place for the simple reason that the American people believe genocide is evil. Now go have yourself a milkshake, [redacted].

From a reader:

My former law partner was a big burly Irishman who was adopted out of a New York City orphange by a Jewish family from South Carolina when he was 10 years old. Other than getting the end of his penis snipped, he thought it a pretty good experience.

While trying a case in Alabama his opposing counsel in closing argument
said, "Mr. Solomon is trying to crucify my client."

Richard responded, "As for the crucifixation, I would remind the jury that
of the three people on the cross that day, two of them were thieves." The
jury agreed.

I like this one:

Mr. Goldberg:

To say Christ was killed by Jews is akin to saying Lincoln was killed by Americans or Gandhi was killed by Indians. Gandhi was killed by Indians because he was an Indian living amongst Indians. It would be difficult for him to be killed by a Papua Guinean. Just a thought.

One Corner reader noted Dean signs gone missing in NH-- But today there was a Dean "people-powered" bus in Milford/Amherst NH, with bundled-up Dean supporters and abundant signage crowding each corner of the central intersection.

In my town, no new Dean signs, but none taken down that I notice, and there a lot here. Someone posted a Kerry sign on my lawn (located at a main town intersection) the day after Iowa. (It went in the trash.)

However, my neighbor, an upscale liberal, former Brit, and former Dean supporter, now laments, "I don't like Kerry and I don't like Dean anymore. There aren't enough candidates!"

Wes Clark didn't have the decency, the wits or the guts (take your pick) to disagree with Michael Moore about calling Bush a deserter. Maybe Clark will disagree with Moore about the war in Kosovo

Here's some of what Moore thought about Clark's proudest moment:

"Dear friends,

As we file our taxes today (procrastinators, all of us), and we sign our names on the bottom line of our 1040 tax forms, perhaps we should ask ourselves if what we are doing is signing a death warrant for people we don't even know. Because each night, for the past three weeks, millions of dollars of bombs and missiles -- that you and I paid for -- are being used to kill people in the former Yugoslavia. That makes you and I culpable in their execution.

Did you personally know any of the people who were killed in the village of Pristina (capitol of Kosovo) last week? Had they ever done anything to harm you? How about the children who were blown to bits in the building in Prizren? Had they ever threatened you in any way to cause you to have to kill them in self-defense? Perhaps you had met the people who were incinerated by us on the train to Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Can you tell me why you would want to take their lives?

I'm sorry to personalize it in this way, but this slaughter is being conducted in your name and mine, and I'll tell you, this is blood I don't want on my hands. We will all have to answer for this some day, and I would like to be able to say that I did not sit by silently while this was being done, and that I did whatever I could to stop it as soon as possible....

"....Now, it is time for all of us to stop Clinton and his disgusting, hypocritical fellow democrats who support him in this war. It is amazing to watch all these "liberal" congress members line up behind the President. In a way, I'm glad it's happening, if only to show the American people there is little difference between the Democrats and the usually war-loving Republicans. Aren't you getting a kick watching the Pat Buchanans and the Henry Hydes sounding like pacifists! These politicians can change stripes at the drop of a hat (or bomb) because, ultimately, they are the same animal, participants in a one-party system that tries to fool the people by going by two names ("Democrat" and "Republican").

Please call or write your member of Congress, send a letter to the editor, let the Democrats know we have had it with the whole lot of them. This is OUR country, not theirs and the corporate interests they really represent. It's time to start taking it back.

Each cruise missile that is launched could have built a dozen schools or hired another hundred teachers or provided health care to a thousand people. Those millions of dollars could have been spent saving lives and educating children. Every night, Clinton isn't just bombing Yugoslavia, he's bombing you.

Yours, Michael Moore

So, questions for Michael Moore fans: Is Wes Clark a war criminal toady of that "disgusting" Bill Clinton? Or, is Michael Moore a craven opportunist willing to endorse the architect of a "slaughter" of women and children?

Questions for Wes Clark fans: What does it say about Clark that he's willing to boast, as he did last night, that he has "the support of a man like Michael Moore." Or, has Clark simply not "looked into the facts" surrounding Kosovo enough to decide whether Moore is right or not?

A reader writes:

Jonah, isn't it as absurd for Jews to hold Christians collectively responsible for the murderous actions of medieval Christians - regardless of their reasoning - as it would be for Christians to hold Jews collectively responsible for killing Jesus?

I mean, if a Jew does that, he is tacitly accepting the medieval Christians' argument holding him accountable.

It's ludicrous, of course, in both cases. And in any event, Jesus came to die. No Crucifixion, no Resurrection, no salvation for mankind.

Me: I think that's all perfectly legitimate. I would only say two things. First, I don't think I'm "blaming" any Christians today of anything, at least not in the context of this discussion. Second, I think intergenerational guilt is a terrible and sinful concept and I don't believe in it (nor does Judaism, by the way, contrary to what I may have implied earlier). But institutions live longer than people and therefor institutions need to account for their behavior in previous eras. I think the Catholic Church has largely done that. But I do think it had the responsibility to do so, even if Catholics living today are individually blameless for anything Catholics did a thousand years ago.

I love this Clark blames Brit thing. It dovetails nicely with a discussion I heard on NPR this afternoon while driving downtown. Diane Riehm and her callers were deeply vexed that God permits Fox News to exist.

It all reminds me of an essay John Podhoretz wrote a long time ago in which he recounted a story about applying for job at Time magazine. The editor quizzed John about whether, as a conservative, he could keep his ideology in check writing for a journalistic enterprise like Time. If I remember correctly, John replied of course, but have you ever asked liberal journalists if they could check their ideology in the same way? She hadn't.

There is this amazing congnitive dissonance among liberals which says that liberals can be honest brokers but conservatives cannot. Time, Newsweek, ABC, CBS, etc etc etc etc etc etc, are rife with writers and editors who've worked for prominent Democratic politicians or for expressly liberal magazines like Mother Jones, the New Republic, Washington Monthly etc. And yet to suggest that their biases might influence their coverage is considered a right-wing bugaboo. But when conservatives commit journalism it's supposed to be obvious that they are incapable of playing it straight.

From a Marine chaplain:

Famous Christian hymn, by Bernard of Clairvaux (12th century), set to its modern harmony by Bach - O Sacred Head, Now Wounded - has always informed my understanding of collective guilt in regards to Jesus' crucifixion, especially the 2nd verse:

What thou, my Lord, hast suffered

Was all for sinners' gain;

Mine, mine was the transgression,

But thine the deadly pain.

Lo, here I fall, my saviour!

'Tis I deserve thy place.

Look on me with thy favour,

Vouchsafe to me thy grace.

(tr. From German by J. W. Alexander approx. 1840)

That line - "Mine, mine was the transgression..." - gets me every time I sing it around Good Friday/Passover.

From a pastor in the United Presbyterian Church:

Jonah-
Concerning your post on this scripture reference and the subject of guilt for Christ's crucifixion, there are a couple of things worth mentioning.
1. The words of the crowd must be tied not only to Jesus' fate, but to the fate of Barabbas. If we are to imagine a crowd (at least some of whom are gathered to hear of and possibly influence the selection of the prisoner who would receive paschal amnesty), and realize that they are confronted with the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, it seems likely that any faltering on the part of the crowd would be influenced by their leaders - which is what Matthew's account makes clear.
2. Even if there is a symbolism that the crowd's response reflects the response of an even greater majority of the nation, Matthew undoubtedly knew that all the first disciples of Jesus were Jews. It is only when Matthew's gospel is read not as a description of Jesus' trial, but of later church-synogogue relations that it can be forced into the framework of anti-Semitism.
3. Because the first disciples, and indeed the entire nascent church are ethnically Jewish, the kind of opprobrium which is found directed at various Jewish people (whether leaders or crowds) must be seen to be in line with the writings of the prophets in the Old Testament. In the prophets the people are both the object of compassionate pleading and virulent warnings.
4. Finally (and yes, I owe you an aoplogy for making this "couple of things" into four points), about the words themselves: they may well be not simply a double-entendre, but a triple-entendre. The Christian message is that all who are guilty before the Living God of and complicit in the death of his Son (meaning all of us without exception), still may have the prospect of being forgiven and transformed by what Christ accomplished on the cross.

This has been a rather long note. Thanks for reading. Thanks for your columns and Corner postings

I saw this in the Washington Times [yesterday]--shows the Republicans don't get it either. I have seen this and a number of other commercials--I was not particularly impressed with this commercial (I doubt many independent and democratic Iowans were either)--it is just one big stereotype rant. The commercial, I think that did Dean in (as if he needed much help) was one that Kerry ran showing a widow who speaks to the camera about raising several children alone (after her husband died of cancer) on income of $28K per year. The tag is that I support Kerry because he does not believe that raising taxes on the middle class is the answer.

This commercial was perfect for him--it does not say he's a tax cutter (though based on some analysis I have seen, there are those that infer this) nor does it directly say he's going to raise taxes or that he is opposed to tax cuts (which I believe he is inferring)--so he nails Dean as a tax and spend democrat (he's been railing against the Bush tax cuts incessantly) and does not alienate those that are opposed to tax cuts. Very clever and I think extremely effective. So the folks below got it part right-- advertising helped--but not the ad they are giving credit.

My 2 cents.

From: Joaquin Navarro-Valls [e-mail address deleted]
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 6:06 AM
To: Steve McEveety
Subject: R: RE: Jewish Week article by Eric Greenberg

Dear Steve,
I don't think it would be wide to argue with any small thing on this topic. The piece on the WSY [Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal piece initially reporting the papal quote--RD] was something and it remains "the" point on our position. Nobody can deny it. So keep mentioning it as the autorized point of reference. I would try to make the words "It is as it was" the leit motive in any discusion on the film. Repeat the words again and again and again Happy new year,
Joaquin

Interesting:

Jonah -

Let me add one interesting fact to the deluge of opinion that you're undoubtedly receiving already. St. John Chrysostom, who is generally regarded as one of the more antisemitic of the Church Fathers, denied that the guilt of the Crucifixion extended either to later generations of Jews or to all Jews of Jesus's own generation. In his Homilies on Matthew 86, he wrote:

When they [the Jews] saw the judge [Pilate] washing his hands, and saying, "I am innocent," they cried out "His blood be on us, and on our children." Then at length when they had given sentence against themselves, he yielded that all should be done.

See here too their great madness. For passion and wicked desire are like this. They suffer not men to see anything of what is right. For be it that ye curse yourselves; why do you draw down the curse upon your children also?

Nevertheless, the lover of man, though they acted with so much madness, both against themselves, and against their children, so far from confirming their sentence upon their children, confirmed it not even on them, but from the one and from the other received those that repented, and counts them worthy of good things beyond number. For indeed even Paul was of them, and the thousands that believed in Jerusalem; for, "thou seest it is said, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe." And if some continued in their sin, to themselves let them impute their punishment. [emphasis added]

For further discussion of this and other points relating to Christian antisemitism, see http://stromata.tripod.com/id245_february_9_2002.htm

Best wishes,

Two emails:

Jonah,

I grew up in a Protestant, Bible-believing home, and consider myself an evangelical, born-again Christian. I have attended Presbyterian churches, Baptist churches, Evangelical Free churches, Community churches, Bible churches, and I attended a Baptist elementary school, and a Baptist high school. I have NEVER heard any anti-Semitic remarks from anyone in any of these churches. In fact, we are very pro-Israel, as all the churches I have ever attended have been.

Any Christian mad at the Jews for crucifying Christ is ignorant. Sure, the Jewish leaders had Jesus crucified with the help of Pilate and the Romans, but the good guys in the story are Jewish, too. Jesus was a Jew; his disciples were Jewish; most of the people he dealt with in the gospels were Jewish. It defies logic to be a Christian and be anti-Semitic.

And...

Jonah,
Please hear from a learned Southern Baptist that neither you nor your daughter should bear any guilt for Christ's execution. And I can tell you that I have NEVER heard one word from a pastor, preacher, Sunday School teacher, lay person or evangelist -- nobody -- that even hinted at blaming
the Jews -- meaning you and others -- for Christ's death.
Blaming you or any Jew for that would be like cursing Payton Manning today for his father's fourth quarter interception in 1976.
With that said, I think the ADL isn't being sincere with this movie. To continue with the football analogy, they're not trying to protect Payton (the Jews of today). Instead they're moving the blame from the Saints QB (The Jews) to the Saints coach (the Romans.)
The Romans were indeed in control of the government, but they allowed the Jews to carry on with their religious beliefs and customs. And it was the Jewish sect of the pious, prideful Pharisees who plotted against Jesus and arranged for his arrest and death. The Romans were interested in parties and power, not religious squabbling, so to appease the Pharisees they carried out the request that Jesus be executed for blasphemy.
To the Romans, it was just another execution. To the Jews, it was the elimination of a rabble rouser who was taking away their power and questioning their authority. The Romans allowed to Pharisees to call their own play, and the Pharisees fumbled -- the messiah they were waiting for was right in their midst, and they were too blind to see it.
I understand your individual worry, as a Jewish man, that the movie could incite some idiot to say something mean to your daughter. But the ADA isn't trying to protect you daughter -- it's trying to re-write history.

ABC has supposedly found that while a majority of Americans reject gay marriage, they also reject a constitutional amendment to ban it. Now it would not surprise me if the public were to reject an amendment as a radical step. I was surprised when the New York Times, last month, found 55 percent support for an amendment. But ABC's polling is seriously misleading.

They find 58 percent opposition to the amendment, and 38 percent support, when the alternative of letting each state decide is presented. That's a noteworthy result. It tells us, for one thing, which argument opponents of an amendment are likely to find most effective. But to frame the alternatives in this way is not to ask a neutral question. It is to take sides in the debate. FMA proponents, for the most part, say that the whole reason an amendment is required is that a state-by-state approach is not a real-world alternative. Presumably the answer would come out differently if the alternative to FMA was the national imposition of gay marriage by the federal and state judiciaries. According to FMA proponents, that's what the alternative is.

ABC says that the results depend on the wording of the question and presents some other polling organization's wording and results. But it makes it sound as though its question is superior--since it has given information about the alternatives, unlike the Times--and doesn't even hint at the existence of the problem I just described. ABC also cites a Pew Center poll, just as misleading, that frames the alternatives as an amendment and a non-constitutional prohibition on gay marriage. On the stated argument of the FMAers, mere statutes will not survive a campaign of judicial activism--and that's why their preferred constitutional amendment is needed.

From the AP:

Democratic Candidates Reveal Childhood Nicknames

POSTED: 8:52 a.m. EST January 23, 2004
Pinky is out. But Spanky is still in the running -- as are the Johnnys and Dennis the Menace.

The Democratic presidential contenders are revealing their school kid nicknames.

The two Johns -- Sens. Kerry and Edwards -- went by Johnny.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, then and now, was Joe.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was called "H" as a kid.

Al Sharpton's buddies used to call him Spanky from the old "Little Rascals."

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he was known as Dennis the Menace.

Former Gen. Wesley Clark now goes by Wes, but says he didn't have a nickname.

And U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, who dropped out of the race this week, was called Pinky.

Another:

If the Jews are blamed for Christ's crucifixion, shouldn't they also deserve our prayer for being the instrument of God's will for our salvation? Without the crucifixion, the Lamb wouldn't have been sacrificed and the gates of heaven would remain closed. Seems to me, the ultimate sin of deicide had to occur--it had been foretold and foreshadowed hundreds of years before in Isaiah and the Psalms. In all fairness, the thought of a Jew claiming that the awesome God of the Theophany on Mt. Sinai and other OT scenes could possibly be contained in a human form, when the non-Levite, & unpurified Uzzah had been struck dead merely for touching the Ark of the Covenant as he tried to prevent its fall was gut-wrenchingly blasphemous in the extreme, as was the eating of His Flesh and drinking of His Blood. Jesus allowed most of His disciples to walk away when they couldn't accept that teaching, and even asked Peter and the Apostles if they were going to leave also. How many Christians now find it hard to believe that He meant what He said in John 6 because it tests the limits of human understanding, or that He meant what He said about divorce, or that life begins at conception? (The command against abortion is found in the Didache, which is an ancient document containing the teachings of the Apostles themselves.) Secondly, if some Jews, the Sanhedrin in particular, deserve the blame for plotting Christ's death, they also deserve our abundant gratitude as well. Christ, the apostles, St. Paul, and the original converts to Christianity in Jerusalem were all Jews, and spread the Gospel at the cost of many, if not most of their lives. As for intergenerational culpability, we Christians committed our own atrocities against the Jews through the ages. It seems to me that every recitation of the Lord's Prayer should make us eager to forgive and forget them, just as we need and desire God's forgiveness! Christians are the heirs of the Jews, grafted onto the vine of which we are now also the branches--the vine which is God and whose branches are God's Chosen people.

Lots of email like this one:

As an evangelical Christian, it is my understanding that what made Christ's death on the cross necessary was the sin of mankind. He died as the ultimate atonement for EVERYONE's sin, and through his sacrifice it is possible for humans to have a restored relationship with God. That God used the Roman government and the complicity of the Jewish leaders to accomplish Jesus' death does not make these two groups any more culpable than anyone else. For any Christian leader, past or present, to promote the view that Christ's death was the "fault" of the Jews is to miss the point. We're all culpable, individually and corporately. He died to save us all.

The purpose of the Passion is most definitely to reignite the notion of collective guilt. However, the collective group responsible is a lot bigger than the Jews or the Romans. It is all of us. John 3:16 says that God loved the world enough to give His Son for it. Romans 5:6 says that just at the right time while all of us were completely powerless to save ourselves Christ died for the ungodly. If the Passion assists in reigniting the notion that each and every one of us individually and collectively was sufficient cause and reason for the suffering and death of Christ, then it has done its job.

Well, I guess I should have anticipated this. Yes, Matthew 27:25 has the infamous passage in which the Jewish crowd declares "His blood be upon us." I did know that. What I didn't know is that the entire argument hinges on this one passage. Or at least that's what people are telling me. Again, surely not every Jew was in that crowd, right? Anyway, here's an interesting essay a reader tipped me off to. And here's an email from a friend of mine:

Hey, Jonah. I'm sure you're getting a million emails answering this, but the reason the stigma of having killed Jesus is thought to carry onto Jews of every generation is the point in Matthew (I think it's like 27:25) where the Jews apparently called out "Let his [Jesus's] blood be upon us and on our children." This quatation is also largely behind the medieval blood libel (that Jews drank the blood of young Christian children) and the accusation that Jews desecrated the Host, and is a large part of why so many anti-semitic incidents in Europe (pogroms in the East, massacres and forced conversions of Jews in small towns in the West) took place around Easter.

Hope you're having a great morning!

So I'm reading about the whole Mel Gibson Vs. "The Jews" thing again. I stopped for a while because, without seeing the movie, and having heard all sides, it just didn't seem worth it to follow which version of the film was being screened where.

But here's the thing which I still don't get. Let's say "The Jews" were responsible for the crucifixion to some significant extent. Obviously, even if you want to blame "The Jews" you can't blame them 100% since it was the Romans who gustily did the actual torturing and killing. But let's say "The Jews" do in fact deserve a fair share of the blame.

(I'm posing this all as a hypothetical, by the way, precisely because I don't want to get into the weeds on the debate on what the Gospels say or don't say about who should get the blame. It's interesting, but irrelevant to my confusion.)

So let's just say "The Jews" of 2,000 years ago were indicted co-conspirators in the death of Jesus.

So what? I'm not being disrespectful. I'm actually curious: Where in Christian theology does it say that guilt should be carried on for dozens of generations? It seems to me that inheriting the sins of your forefathers runs quite contrary to my understanding of Christianity. Under Jewish theology, on the other hand, I can see where such tribal notions could endure. But where does the doctrine of intergenerational guilt come from in Christianity?

Please note: I don't mean to say that Christians today believe in intergenerational guilt. But some clearly did in the past, right? And some in all likelihood do today. I mean that's why so many Jewish groups are concerned about "The Passion" in the first place -- because they fear it will reignite notions of collective guilt.

And if, say, my daughter can be held responsible for Jesus' plight, why can't Italians? I suppose it's because Italians are now Christians. But the point remains.

Anyway, I'm actually just curious to know on what grounds Christian theologians in the past justified blaming people who were born a thousand or more years after the Crucifixion for the crimes of their forefathers, especially when even in the Dark Ages it should have been clear that not every single Jewish contemporary of Jesus supported the Crucifixion or had even heard of Jesus. So presumably blaming their descendents would be a bit unfair.

Because I suspect that this post will elicit a lot of email, I'd really like to ask that only people with some significant expertise on the subject send me email. It's very hard for me to handle the flow on these sorts of discussions (remember the whole brouhaha on the alleged power of group prayer?), but I would hate to stop doing these things simply to avoid the on-rush of email.

For a couple weeks at least now on my ride to work on NH rt 128 in Windham there has been a huge Dean for America sign. At least 4 feet tall and 8 feet wide. That sign was gone this morning.

Also at the 93 overpass on NH rt 102 there has always been people holding signs for various candidates as far back as this summer. Last week it was all Clark, yesteday clark, kerry and there were some bused in Deaniacs. this am all clark and kerry. no sign of Deaniacs, not even a faint smell of VT kind buds and patcholi oil.

I did not watch the debate last night. but this is an interesting thing to witness. obviously my ride to work does not indicate the entire state's frame of mind, but combined with new ARG numbers it looks like Dean is done on Wednesday morning (not necessarily a newsflash).

Mr. Derbyshire thinks it'd be cool to work Riemann's name into the NRO motto. Having read his book, I think it'd be better to add another term from it: "The Critical Line." You know, "This is NRO, The Critical Line." Get J.E. Jones to use his Darth Vader voice a-la CNN. The problem is, that the zeros of zeta of s are on the critical line, and I can see some wag saying the same about the NRO staff.

Will be on around 8:30ish AM EST.

Here's the AP headline: "Poll Hints Support for Iraq Policy Strong"

Here's the first paragraph:

"WASHINGTON -- Public support for the war in Iraq remains strong, with almost two-thirds of the American public saying that going to war was the right decision, a poll out Thursday found."

That's a pretty strong hint isn't it?

(nod to lucianne.com)

"In this Ziploc bag, Ladies and Gentlemen, are veal bones. They have been roasted for two hours at a low heat, cracked with a mallet and simmered for another hour in a tender jus of thyme, shallot, butter, white wine, water, with just a touch of sea salt. These bones, and the fragrant liquid they yielded, are, I need hardly spell out, an affront to every American woman who has ever peeled a small, hard stock cube out of its silver wrapping and thrown it into the risotto hoping that somehow it will give the dish an Italianate flavor.

"Ladies, I know. Until Martha Stewart erupted on the national scene some 20 years ago, would any of you have felt bad about using stock cubes? Would you have apologized to your guests, and felt compelled to say, with a little shrug, 'Well, it's not how Martha Stewart would have done it, but . . .' Would you? No, you would not. Without Miss Gracious-Living-Guru-Stewart to make you feel inadequate, you would have fed your guests risotto flavored with prefabricated, mass-marketed, cow-spine-derived, MSG-laden stock cubes and, members of the Jury, they would have been happy to eat it! Yeeeaaargh!

These guys talk about buying cheaper prescription drugs from Canada as if it is a permanent option no matter what policy the United States takes. This is like saying the corner grocer sells a can of frank and beans for $2 a can but every Federally-run cafeteria in the country pays $2.50 a can, therefor the US govt. should spend $400 million a month on F&Bs from the corner grocery.

The moment the federal government allows all Americans to buy their prescription drugs from Canada is the moment that option will disappear.

It seems that Mark Steyn beat me to the Hulk-Dean comparison by more than a month. While I was in Mexico last month the Great One wrote in the WSJ:

Howard Dean catapulted himself from Vermont obscurity to national fame very ingeniously. His campaign was tonally brilliant. He was an angry peacenik, an aggressive defeatist, he got in-your-face about getting out of Iraq. The problem with pacifism as a political position is that it's too easy to seem wimpy, wussy, nancy-boyish, pantywaisty, milksopping, etc. In that sense, his fellow Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, has a pacifist mien: I'm not saying he's a pantywaist or milksop, but he comes over as a goofy nebbish, as the Zionist neocons would say. The main impact he's made on the Granite State electorate seems to be his lack of a girlfriend, which has prompted a New Hampshire Web site to try and find a date for him. Somehow one is not surprised to hear this. By contrast, when Howard Dean, shortish and stocky, comes out in his rolled-up shirtsleeves, he looks like Bruce Banner just before he turns into the Incredible Hulk, as if his head's about to explode out of his shirt collar. Republicans are from Mars, Democrats are from Venus, but Dr. Dean is Venusian in a very Martian way. He's full of anger.

I was completely unaware that I was ripping him off when I first wrote that. My apologies.

Sure, "clean-shaven, sober, and fully clothed" is a nice motto for Jonah, but I'd bet money the "stubbled, half lit, and dressed in clothing from the frat house lost and found" Jonah would be way more fun at a party.

Is there any way we can re-open the contest for an NRO motto? At the very least, the title of that Hill piece on Jonah really should become a permanent subtitle on the Goldberg File:

"Clean-shaven, sober, and fully clothed"

I've seen a couple stories on the news and in print now about how former NY Mayor David Dinkins is endorsing Wes Clark. I'm not going to bother linking to them. But why on earth does anyone think A) this is news of any kind or B) that this will have any affect whatsoever in New Hampshire or anywhere else? I mean Al Gore's endorsement only mattered in a bad way, it seems. But Dinkens? I mean good or bad that's like smacking a tank with a nerf bat.

From a reader:

Jonah --

Good short article about you in The Hill, but what's up with the picture?? That can't be you. They should have used your svelte, man-about-town picture from NRO. Their picture makes you look like a Romanian carpet salesman.

Check out the George Bush conspiracy generator!

Here's one result I got:

"George W. Bush had Michael Jackson arrested so that The Jews, Ann Coulter, and SUV owners could oppress welfare recipients."

(Note: please refrain from sending me your own results. Thanks).

This wife-adoring reader writes:

Very positive write-up and yeah, the picture could have been better but it
just proves my theory: photo editors are the most powerful people in media.
If Hillary Clinton sneezes with a mouthful of cake, the NY Post will run
that photo until the day she dies. The same way lefty sites love pictures of
the President using his hands to show a certain level and it looks like a
Nazi salute. Oh well...

Hey, I'm going to get my wife to give me a subscription to NRODT for my
birthday next week. It'll make nice train reading.

Peace,

The New Republic's Michael Grunwald has a good piece on how Republicans might run against Kerry. Here's the opener:

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry likes to say that, if he's the Democratic nominee and President Bush wants to make the election a referendum on national security, he has just three words to say: "Bring It On!" But what if Kerry becomes the nominee and Bush wants to make the election more than a referendum on national security? What would the Republicans bring on then?

In all likelihood, they would hammer Kerry for his opposition to mandatory minimum sentences for dealers who sell drugs to children and for voting against the death penalty for terrorists. They would mock his efforts to provide cash benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics, and his onetime opposition to a modest work requirement for welfare recipients. They would trash him for supporting more than half a trillion dollars in tax increases-including hikes in gas taxes and Social Security taxes on ordinary Americans-while accepting free housing and other goodies for himself from friendly influence-peddlers. They would even point out that, when Kerry served as lieutenant governor under one Michael S. Dukakis, Massachusetts famously furloughed more than 500 murderers and sex offenders under a program Kerry later defended as tough.

In fact, they already have....

At some point very soon the media is going to realize that it's going "too far" with the Dean primal scream thing. In one sense I do think this hype is unfair. If you looked at it in a vacuum, I think most people would think it's not really that big a deal. I'm sure he's given that yell dozens of times before to his troops.

But, politics is all about context. Dan Quayle isn't an idiot and he wasn't immature, but he chose the wrong couple moments to seem too young and to get tongue-tied. I doubt that Al Gore was the most pompous liar in the history of politics, but in 2000 he didn't make enough of an effort to avoid that image, so that's the image that stuck. Sure, it's unfair, but who said politics is fair? Look, if John Edwards had a horse-face, he'd still be a lawyer in North Carolina, and probably not nearly as successful as he has been thanks to his mug. Once the media -- never mind the public -- buys into a storyline about a particular candidate, that candidate is in real trouble. Dean surely knew that he was cultivating the image of an angry, bull-headed brawler. At precisely the moment he should have countered that image, he reinforced it.

Jonah -- My husband was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Every year at Tet they would get bang chung for a treat. They were starved all year, and they really appreciated the yearly bang chung. So the first year we were dating he took me to a Vietnamese restaurant at Tet and ordered bang chung for dessert, thinking he was giving me a nice oriental delicacy. It was the most repulsive thing I'd ever eaten. It's glutinous rice, rolled around starchy bean paste, with some pig fat in the middle. The whole thing is boiled, probably for days. I don't know why it's called a dessert, because it's not sweet. It's almost tasteless, with a gluey consistency.

The contempt for women and for medicine that underlies the Christian right's attack on choice is as shocking as it is invisible. The right has been absolutely brilliant in cloaking an indifference to women's health in language that seems to affirm life.

The partial-birth abortion ban strips away this right and returns us to the antique notion of woman as womb. If a woman is defined basically as her reproductive organs, her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is secondary to the rights of her foetus. It is this principle that the partial birth abortion ban seeks to establish.

Your safety also depends, to a lesser degree, on what happens in Washington, and therefore, on Iowa and New Hampshire. On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Paul Krugman wrote that Howard Dean and Wesley Clark were the great Democratic hopes because they alone understand how rotten and lying the Bush administration is, and dare to say so forcefully. That is such a clear analysis that it needs only a little adjustment to make it perfect. The United States, the Muslim world, and indeed the world are involved in a war that will last decades. George W. Bush, for all his limitations, senses the stakes. Messrs. Dean, Clark and Krugman would rather think about Enron. Take your choice.

know your son was married recently. If your son had been born gay, would you want him to have the same rights that he enjoys today?

I would want him to have the right to have a stable relationship. But whether you call it marriage or not is up to the church or the synagogue or the mosque. And it’s up to the state legislatures. I think marriage is a term of art. It’s a term of usage. But the legal side of it is not: It’s not negotiable.

But about 40% of U.S. marriages every year happen without any religious participation.

I support whatever the state says. If the state of Massachusetts says we’re going to form a civil union but we’re going to call it marriage, then as far as I’m concerned, that’s marriage.

So you support Massachusetts’s calling it marriage?

Yeah, absolutely.

How do you think Congress would react to that?

Well, they’ll love it. This is exactly what they’re looking for. Newt Gingrich [KJL: Why would I even wonder if he knows that Newt isn't Speaker any more?] and Tom DeLay and all those guys are looking for a real hand grenade to throw into the Democratic Party. It’s an absurd issue, and it’s one of the reasons I’m running. No one can accuse me of being soft on defense, and no one can accuse me of not knowing about what the armed forces are about. And when I say, “It’s OK,” then it’s OK, period. But elections aren’t always about common sense. And I think [Republicans] would love to frighten people.

Pro-Life Movement Leaders to Discuss Women, Abortion and the Law

When: 10:30 a.m.-12 p.m., Friday, Jan. 23, 2004

Where: Slowinski Courtroom

Columbus School of Law

The Catholic University of America

3600 McCormack Road, N.E.



Washington, DC Details: CUA Professor of Law Helen Alvaré will moderate a panel discussion titled "Abortion and the American Woman: Women, Abortion and the Law, A Colloquy with Women Leaders in the Pro-Life Movement" the day after the annual March for Life, which is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of participants to Washington, D.C. The law school event will feature a panel presentation followed by a discussion of the interplay between abortion law and women's lives.

The panelists will include Georgette Forney, executive director of the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life and co-founder of the National Silent No More Awareness Campaign; Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life; and Cathy Cleaver Ruse, director of planning and information for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The law school is located one block from the Brookland/CUA Metro stop on the Red Line

"We are going to help her with the debt," [Dean adviser Jon] Haber told me. The debt tab could be in the neighborhood of some $300,000 and Dean's camp will help Braun raise the money to pay it off. Braun will campaign for Dean three days of the week, with the Dean campaign picking up her travel expenses. Braun will become a Dean campaign consultant and will be paid about $20,000. Up to three of Braun's staffers, including [Patricia] Ireland, will be hired by the Dean campaign.

From a reader:

It strikes me that the Republican party is rapidly becoming the Democratic party of the first half of the 20th Century. Bush can be compared to Theodore Roosevelt - the first big government Republican, to FDR, and you yourself compared him to LBJ.

The Democratic Party today seems to be imploding while the GOP is rapidly recreating itself. I believe that in twenty years there will be a new conservative party, the Republicans will be the Old Democrats, and there will be no Democrats as we know them today. And I don't mean a Patrick Buchanon-type conservative party.

Rather then being troubled at what Bush is doing, be thankful that he is effectively destroying the modern Democrat Party and be confident that conservatives will always have a home, even if It's not in the GOP.

YEAH, RIGHT
E-mail
Subject: A stupid question
The Frost Elf

WHY WE FEEL COLD I
E-mail:
Subject: Heat
Bona fides: MS in Mech Engr Rice University, worked for 2 years in heat tracing industry (heat pipes in refineries and chemical plants), NASA research engineer 3 years. Don't think in terms of cold, think in terms of heat and a lack of heat. Heat is a form or energy, and it actually makes molecules expand or spread apart, because they become more "energetic." Heat flows downhill - from a hot object to a cold object. In Iowa, or in NH, the air lacks heat, and you produce heat. The cold you feel is the heat energy leaving your body to flow "downhill" to the cold outside.

WHY WE FEEL COLD II
E-mail:
Subject: What is cold
Temperature is related to molecules whizzing about and banging into each other. As it gets colder, the molecules slow down like traffic near the mall at Christmastime.
Density is the spatial distribution of molecules - how far apart they are. The heat your feel is due to the number and speed of the molecule whacking into you.

NO WAY!
E-mail:
Subject: A Scientifical Explanation of Cold Air
Actually, Timmy, mass becomes denser when it cools, so the molecules would come closer together when the temperature drops. When molecules cool, the kinetic energy drops, and thus the molecules vibrate slower. At absolute zero (the complete absence of heat) the molecules would lose all energy and would fall right to the floor and you'd trip on them. It's true! Tell any scientist that at your local sciencetorium and he'll think you're smart.

From my Times of London column (behind an impenetrable firewall):

"Sanity breaks out among Democrats: Mad How disease is contained in Iowa"

What happened to Howard Dean? He was assassinated by Bill and Hillary with the assistance of Chris Lehane, the political hit man who first worked for Kerry and now backs Clark.

This was an unexpected and fascinating bit of political theater. Democrats have talked themselves into believing that the president will be on the defensive to some degree this year because the situation in Iraq is not yet stable and the weapons of mass destruction have not been discovered.

But they have been speaking to an echo chamber. They have yet to take into account that the president and his people will have things to say about them - about their weird flip-flopping and the way they seemed to pick up and discard positions throughout 2003 in a desperate attempt to appeal to Democratic constituencies that seemed to have parted company with all reason.

The non-Deans may not carry his anti-war, Bush-hating, screeching-psycho baggage, but they have said a great many things and taken a great many contradictory positions they are going to have to account for.

Democrats have grown comfortable in their self-righteous denunciations of the Patriot Act because it has largely gone undefended except by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has become the liberals' whipping boy as a result.

Their discomfort begins today.

The Iowa result was the worst possible outcome for retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who has been rising in the polls here for next week's primary. As Clark happily worked the phones at his Manchester headquarters on Monday night, Eli Segal, Clark's campaign manager, spoke to reporters just minutes before the Iowa results were known. Segal said he was looking forward to a two-person New Hampshire face-off between Clark and Dean -- the contest Segal longed for because he knew Clark could win it. Now Clark competes with Kerry for the Cincinnatus role and the patriotic progressive vote, and with Edwards for voters drawn to a new Southern face.

A weakened Dean still has the money, the troops and the endorsements to push on and on. But can he win? His only chance is to realize that the best parts of his old message have been plagiarized and that he needs to consider a little larceny of his own. Can Dean do hope, optimism and patriotism and not simply shout himself hoarse with outrage? He's got less than a week to prove he can.

Statement by Governor Howard Dean on President Bush's State of the Union Address

"Tonight, President Bush made the case only for his defeat in November. President Bush offered a stale agenda that aids the special interests and does very little for working Americans.

"The President's speech underscored the need for replacing him with a proven, experienced leader, one who has balanced budgets and made tough decisions, and who stands up for the truth and what is right."

I didn't like the speech very much. It was too long, and too expensive. It wasn't as well written as his previous SOTUs. An example of clunky writing: "But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts. Already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." I liked the legal-papers and permission-slip lines, though. In general, the foreign policy section was a lot better than the domestic section. (There's no forward strategy of freedom for America.)

As for the Democrats: I refuse to believe that the people of South Dakota are as whiny and selfish as Tom Daschle makes them out to be.

"He's not making America safer," said Kerry." "Hardworking Americans will see through this president's effort to wrap his radical agenda with a compassionate ribbon," said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the third-place finisher in Iowa. "It's all smoke and mirrors designed to hide the stark fact that he has no real plan for our future," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important ? and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts ? already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims ? terrified and innocent. The killing fields of Iraq ? where hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children vanished into the sands ? would still be known only to the killers. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.

The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right. Last January, Iraq's only law was the whim of one brutal man. Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June. As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends--but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom.

Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future. And tonight we are honored to welcome one of Iraq's most respected leaders: the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi. Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation.

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible--and no one can now doubt the word of America.

Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the PATRIOT Act, which allows Federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens ? you need to renew the PATRIOT Act.

K-Lo,

With all due respect, if you gave the american public the following poll:

Which SOTU guest are you more excited about:

A) Iraqi governing council peeps
B) Patriots quarterback Tom Brady

Now what do think the outcome would be? Girl/Guy thing? Unfortunately, I think it's just you.

Ciao

We are living in a time of great change--Yet some things endure-- courage and compassion, reverence and integrity, respect for differences of faith and race. The values we try to live by never change. And they are instilled in us by fundamental institutions, such as families, and schools, and religious congregations. These institutions --the unseen pillars of civilization ? must remain strong in America?"

All of us--parents, schools, government -- must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children.

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11, 2001--over two years without an attack on American soil--and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting--and false.

America is on the offensive against the terrorists...

As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons--

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better---

America this evening is a Nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them==

We have not come all this way--through tragedy, and trial, and war -- only to falter and leave our work unfinished. Americans are rising to the tasks of history, and they expect the same of us.

That sound you hear is the crunching noise made by the "Dean for America" signs being pulled out of the frozen front yards of the non-crazy left here in Chevy Chase. I have seen 3 disappear since yesterday in my 'hood.

KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?

DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.

CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.

DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...

CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.

DOLE: And I certainly wish you luck. I'm not being critical. I'm just being realistic. I've been there and I lost, of course, which is a lot more fun winning but...

CLARK: Well, I'll tell you what, I've been in a lot of tough positions in my life, one of them was leading the operation in Kosovo where I not only had to hold alliance but I had to worry about the Pentagon behind me. I'm looking forward to New Hampshire.

KING: General Clark, we'll see you next week. And Senator Dole just announced his support for you.

DOLE: In Kosovo, he had my support in Kosovo.

CLARK: I know I did and I'm grateful to you, Senator, for that.

Clark, who didn't compete in Iowa, told campaign workers in Manchester, N.H., that Kerry, a decorated former Navy officer, had a military background "but nobody in this race has got the kind of background I've got."

"It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that, I respect that," Clark said. "But I've got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom."

Kathryn,

Seeing Kerry on TV last night following his caucus victory, I became aware of the appropriateness of the recent NR "Dems in Toyland" cover showing the Democrat candidates as Christmas toys. Kerry was the nutcracker. In his live remarks, Kerry's jaw moved, but the rest of his head was perfectly impassive and wooden. Well, he blinked, too, but that didn't mar the overall effect.

"[Popular] singer Sha'ban Abd Al-Rahim is making headlines again with his announcement that he has put the final touches on his latest album Mahibish Al Karasi (I Don't Like the Chairs) - possibly referring to political positions as opposed to furniture. The new album includes a new ditty about the U.S., Israel, and the road map.

"'Kharittat Al Tariq' (Road Map) is the name of the song which gives voice to widespread views in the Egyptian street regarding the September 11th events and the U.S. - Iraq standoff. The song talks about the road map and includes quotes from U.S. President George W. Bush about the plan's implementation. The song goes on to describe how America is the spitting image of Israel and it carries out its desires, making the world into a 'jungle.' But it does not stop at that point. Abd Al-Rahim goes on to boldly sing that the USA is the perpetrator of the September 11th attacks.

"'Hey people it was only a tower and I swear by God that they are the ones who pulled it down.' Abd Al-Rahim further sings that they purposely did it to make people think that Arabs and Muslims are terrorists and were behind that disaster. Now the U.S. can do what it pleases to the Arab world since everyone thinks they are to blame....

I had to write my syndicated column and my London Times column late last night and early this morning. G-File coming tomorrow by the way. But here's a snippet from the (as yet unedited) synidcated column:

So how did Dean jump the shark? Well, I think the moment was when he greeted his supporters in Iowa after it was clear he came in a meager third place behind John Kerry and John Edwards.

He ran out to the crowds. Waved a flag around, wore one of his campaigns cute yellow hats, peeled off his jacket and rolled up his sleeves. "You know something?" Dean asked the crowd. “If you had told us one year ago that we were going to come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that.”

Okay fair enough. You’ve got to say something uplifting to your supporters when the voters drop you like a fifty-pound bag of Iowa dirt. You can’t just mope like a big dog whose food bowl’s been moved. But then the ravages of “Mad How” disease started to show. "Not only are we going to New Hampshire," he exhorted, his voice managing to get deeper and shriller at the same time. "We're going to South Carolina and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House.”

He then let loose what could only be called a primal scream: “YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAGGGHHHHHH!”

Okay it could be called other things too. But whatever it was, he sounded like he meant to go to a proctologist but accidentally visited a chimney sweep instead.

...Now, compared to some of the other things Dean has said over the last year, his nice list of states is, on the merits, not a big deal. Even his blood curdling scream probably isn’t anything new to the people who know him best.

But it was something new to lots of Americans. Moreover, at the very moment the voters had declared they wanted more moderate and reasonable candidates, Dean gave them undiluted rage. Disc jockeys like Howard Stern are already – unfairly it should be said -- playing his diatribe against the soundtrack of Nuremberg rallies.

Dean has spent the better part of a year running as the candidate of rage. With his bulging neck and slightly mirrored eyes, he even looks like the Hulk in that interim stage in-between man and monster, you know right before he rips out of his clothes and turns green. He may have talked about domestic policy, but his popularity was due to a single issue: his neck-bulging opposition to the war. And yet three-fourths of Iowa caucus voters opposed the war, but they still dropped Dean like a bag of dirt in favor of two men who voted for it.

In short, at just the moment Dean should have made it clear he’s more than just his bezerker schtick, he decided to make a parody of himself. In other words, he jumped the shark.

Howard Dean should have listened to Meredith Willson’s Music Man more as a child. At least his “Iowa Stubborn” song.

Townspeople:
Oh, there's nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you
Which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special
Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without.
That we recall.
We can be cold
As our falling thermometers in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn
We could stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time
And never see eye-to-eye.
But what the heck, you're welcome,
Join us at the picnic.
You can eat your fill
Of all the food you bring yourself.
You really ought to give Iowa a try.

From a reader:

Hey Jonah: Having looked at some of the web sites of the candidates, I have to say this: All the STUFF makes trolling through rather time-consuming and painful. I have a wireless network at home, so I can lay on the couch and surf in between naps, but really. The content is so similar looking, so dense and advertisment-ridden, that I'd rather get my info on CNN, FOX and the radio. The internet really is nothing more than a dense glossy magazine with pages you can't bend much. It may make it easier to contribute or buy stuff, but it's harder to cover your face with it while you're napping. I think you're right about the web.

I dread the concept of voting via the web (PLEASE DO NOT HIT RETURN REPEATEDLY OR YOUR VOTING CARD MAY BE CHARGED MULTIPLE TIMES).

TV is still the medium of choice. The candidates should use it wisely.

Now if I could just afford that 50" plasma I've been scoping out.....

Best,

Dave

From a reader:

Hi Jonah,

I'd be careful before I start declaring Dean and his "internet revolution" dead just yet. I live in MA and I've been sure for some time that Kerry was long dead. Dean had/has double digit leads in MA and NH and had raised 10x the cash here that Kerry had. I know its your job to do that sort of thing but, easy there.

ME: Oh I don't think Dean is dead. I know he's got a lot of money and a lot of die-hard supporters. But that's because he's got a lot of money and a lot of die-hard supporters, not because we've entered some grand internet age. Of course the internet is changing things, but not all changes amount to a "revolution."

The Dean camp did some smart things on the web, obviously, but here's Goldberg's Rule of the Internet and Everything Else: Quality Matters. If Margaret Cho ran for president with Dean's internet organization, she'd go nowhere.

Please take note of two things. First, young people once again proved fairly useless. Every four years some candidate, usually a Democrat, claims that he's bringing in new, energized young people who are ready to change this country, remake the party etc. ERRRRRRR. Wrong. It's really never happened, at least not in a way the politicians could take credit for. Why? Because being young is not like being black or gay or Asian or Catholic or Jewish or any other identity group. Being young is like, well, being young. There are young conservatives and young liberals. Young Catholics and young gays. And within these groups young people and old people will differ with each other just as young people will differ with young people. Anyone who believes Rock the Vote is something other than MTV marketing nonsense deserves to be described as a Rock the Vote voter, i.e. a buffoon.

Second, the internet didn't deliver squat for Howard Dean. The Deaniac webloggers, the meet-uppers, the flash mobbers should all shut up because your vaunted "internet revolution" is fizzling out like a Mexican TV in the rain. You know what makes for a great internet strategy? A great candidate. In 2000, everyone said John McCain had a brilliant internet strategy. He didn't. He had a webpage and some email. But he was a popular candidate and so he had a popular website. Dean was a good candidate for angry anti-war young people, so those people flash-mobbed themselves senseless. Bully for you, but a phone would have worked just as well. Sure, it helps to have good email lists and a good website, but it also helps to have good snail mail lists and a good commercial. If Dean is Thomas Paine because he's got a half million email addresses (picking a number from memory) what does that make George Bush since he's got over 6 million? Is he a revolutionary? Or are "weblutionaries" (my word, I think) only liberals?

The internet is a wonderful thing, but it ain't no Brave New World for electoral politics -- yet. And it probably won't be until we have online voting. And if we do get that, it will be a revolution all right. And like most revolutions the result will be
horrible..

From a reader:

Jonah,

Up here in Boston(and much of southern NH) the two morning shows that get the highest morning ratings are Stern and the main sports radio station. They were both playing the Dean sound-bite over and over and laughing away. Stern probably had the same ratings he always does but WEEI, the sports talk station, probably had a bigger audience than usual because the Pats won this weekend. I think this might’ve been Dean’s “Dead Zone” moment.

Keep up the great work,

Dean got pasted in Iowa. Why? Because this was IOWA, for heaven’s sake. It’s the Midwest. We can tell when someone is getting carried away with himself, and we know what to do: shun him, kindly. It wasn’t so much the substance of Dean’s recent comments; it was the persona behind him. I can imagine a nice Iowa lady of a certain age, sitting in a coffee shop, enjoying her pie, watching the TV crew pack up after Doctor Dean had blown in and out of Bev’s Chatterbox Cafe. “Well, he certainly does think well of himself,” she might have thought. Translation: she wouldn’t spit on his face if his nose was on fire.

K-Lo,

Speaking as a Southerner, a son of a man who really did worked IN a cotton mill, someone who WORKED his way through college, AND a lawyer (all I need to be is good looking and I too could run for President) I don't think Edwards surge has legs. He is the new flavor of the month, much like Dean was a month ago. When scrutiny is paid to him and his message it will be revealed that his is simply a rehash of Gore's class warfare rhetoric of 2000. Just look at his home state where he was set-up to lose his re-election to the Senate in 04.

And come on if there is ANY group people universally hate it's trial lawyers. I say that as a lawyer ;which is why in bars when women ask I make it plain that I am an Assistant United States Attorney and don't just say "I'm a lawyer"...least they run screaming.

In SC Michael Graham had it right that, unlike Republicans, there is no "machine" structure where a king maker can deliver the votes for a Dem candidate. Even Congress Clyburn, the black congressman, does not have an effective organization to mobilize support for a candidate. While the Dem party has a good GOTV it is often controlled by whichever Democrat is at the top of the ticket and is not loyal to one particular person.

Labor unions aren't a big deal here, neither is there an anti-war crowd to speak of (at least away from the college campuses). The people voting in the SC primary will be African Americans in the Midlands/Pee Dee, yellow dogs in the Pee Dee area, blue bloods in the Lowcountry, retired yankees along the coast and veterans scattered throughout the state. I think Clark looks like the man to beat here with Kerry doing suprisingly well.

Dean reminds me of the Hulk in that interim stage just before Bruce Banner turns green and starts to rip his clothes.

645 of 1,993 precincts reporting - 32 percent
Wesley Clark, 3 - 0 percent
Howard Dean, 531 - 18 percent
John Edwards, 990 - 33 percent
Richard Gephardt, 324 - 11 percent
John Kerry, 1,113 - 37 percent
Dennis Kucinich, 24 - 1 percent
Joe Lieberman, 0 - 0 percent
Carol Moseley Braun, 0 - 0 percent
Al Sharpton, 0 - 0 percent
Uncommitted, 0 - 0 percent

Based on all previous correspondence and conversations held directly between representatives of the film and the official spokesperson for the Pope, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Walls, there is no reason to believe that the Pope's support of the film 'isn't as it was'." Alan Nierob Executive Vice-President Rogers & Cowan Los Angeles, Calif.

Kathryn-

I now live in Minnesota but spent most of my life in Iowa and much of my family is still in the Hawkeye state. I was once a county delegate in the caucus system (Dole in ‘96) so I have a pretty good sense of how the system works.

Edwards has really pushed a nice guy image in recent weeks choosing to avoid the vicious infighting between frontrunners Dean, Gephardt, and Kerry. Edwards actually touts his positive campaign more so than any issue that he supports. While being a nice guy doesn’t inspire an enthusiastic base, it could help make Edwards the #2 choice of several caucus voters. Several of the 9 candidates certainly will not hit “viable candidate” status on the first round (Lieberman, Clark, Kucinich). Edwards could therefore be the big winner among caucus goers forced to make a second choice. In contrast, Dean’s abrasiveness may have pushed a lot of voters to have a love or hate opinion of him – his base loves him, supporters of other candidates are turned off by him. With the race between the 4 frontrunners being so close, the re-caucusing rounds will be critical.

I just got this email. Anybody out there know where I can read up more on this. Sounds interesting, even plausible in certain aspects. But my guess is there's a lot more to the story, and ANARCHY magazine doesn't sound peer-reviewed.

A few years ago, I saw an interesting article in ANARCHY magazine, about the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.

The point of the article was that the Klan was not just, or even, for many members, primarily a white-supremacy vehicle.

In some areas, Klan lodges functioned as covert union locals.

A poll by the Klan's national magazine showed that most of the members saw nationalizing the railroads and banks as very important goals, more important than the race-purity ideology of the Klan's nominal leaders.

The Socialist Mayor of Milwaukee was a Klan member!

That's about all I remember from the article, but I thought you would find it interesting.

Hello from an Iowan and active NRO reader. With as much media buzz as there is today regarding the demos, most republicans don't know that there will be a REPUBLICAN caucus tonight also. Bush is already the winner, which takes the fun out of reporting on it. I am actually looking forward to pledging my support to Bush with all the bashing he has been taking by the demos.
Word is that Mark Raciot is going to be attending some of the GOP cauci tonight, so it should be fun. Keep up the good work, and hopefully all the people that support Bush will remember that they can have fun tonight, too.

I am looking for some guidance from the Corner. As an Iowa resident of the Republican persuasion, I am free to march into the local politburo meeting tonight, change my registration to Democrat, and pick a candidate. Of course, my preference is to vote for the candidate most likely to be beaten like a baby seal by George Bush. A number of my friends and fellow NRO readers are making similar plans, so I need your help. If I do not hear back from you, I will just go ahead and vote for Dean. In high school he was voted "the person most likely to have his head explode when he gets really angry", and that would look really cool in the first debate with GWB should he win the nomination.

A reader writes:

Mr. Graham,

I do agree with your views on Edwards. Wouldn’t another compelling reason for Edward’s continued surge be his actual position on Iraq? He’s been consistent, stated we need a long term post-Saddam commitment, voted for the resolution, believes there were WMD’s, hasn’t engaged in the now tiresome “Bush lied” argument which simply cannot hold water if you are interested in reviewing the facts, etc.

In short, Edwards is a democrat who has been consistent on National Security, is supportive of our continued presence in Iraq, and won’t sell out for a quick political point by engaging in “me too” politics. I think that he is truly a centrist democrat that could be a real contender. I suspect he’ll give GWB a run for his money on issues, not accusations....

No?

Best,

Dave

Commissioners at the US Commission on Civil Rights celebrate Martin Luther King's life

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. has become one of America's “founding brothers”.

We celebrate his life as a man who shaped the nation's life as few others have.

Racial progress is a train that left the station decades ago, driven in great part by Dr. King during his too-brief life. His faith in the capacity of white Americans to embrace fundamental moral change was central to his success. It was upon that conviction that he built a movement that indeed changed hearts and minds, in North and South.

There is still much work to do on the road to racial equality.

Faith in America remains essential to that ongoing struggle.

On the day we honor Dr. King, we celebrate as well the country that celebrates him.

Abigail Thernstrom, Commissioner
Jennifer C. Braceras, Commissioner
Peter N. Kirsanow, Commissioner
Russell G. Redenbaugh, Commissioner
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

One of our "Iowa guys" writes:

Jay and Jonah:

I thought you might be interested in this Dean GOTV tactic. I compared notes with a friend (both of us live in Des Moines), and the same thing happened to him:

Dean campaign calls, identifies itself and asks if I have a candidate selected for the caucus.

I say only: I will not be supporting the Governor. My friend identifies himself as an Edwards supporter.

Within an hour, I get a call from St. Louis (Gephardt's home district) and some guy tells me why he is supporting Dean. My friend gets TWO calls from Dean supporters in North Carolina (Edward's home state) with the reasons why they support Dean. (He's the only one who get beat Bush, blah, blah, blah).

Good evidence of the Dean campaign's organizational efforts which will be key to beating Gephardt's traditional labor support.

If I had to guess, and I suppose I do, I'd say that Dean wins very narrowly, Gepahrdt and Kerry almost literally tie for second (I define a tie as anything within 1% of the vote (or, say, less than 1,200 votes) and Edwards makes a respectable 4th. The media will drop its 3 tickets out of Iowa mantra for two reasons. First, if Gephardt doesn't come in first he's probably going to have to drop out anyway, so why let the walking dead use-up one of those tickets? And, second, since the media -- including me -- got this whole race so wrong in the first place, it'll hardly be in a position to issue binding fatwas on such things. In fact, regardless of rankings, the big media spin will be A) Dean's Implosions B) the "photofinish" ending rendering it too close to call. You will hear the word photofinish a lot in the next 24 hours.

Note: my head wants me to say Gephardt will win -- history says organization is better than passion -- but my gut says Dean will squeak it out.

Q: It sounds as if you had a little bit of an anxiety attack when you got the word that you were now governor.

Howard: I did. I hyperventilated and I started hyperventilating and I thought, You better stop that or you won't be much good to anybody.

Q: Has that happened since, or before?

Howard: No.

Q: Why was that such a —

Howard: To suddenly get told that you have responsibility for 600,000 people — it provokes a little anxiety.

Q: But now you're asking for responsibility for 250 million and then, the global reach of the U.S. presidency. That doesn't provoke a little anxiety? Howard: No. I mean, I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't — first of all, I think everybody has a little anxiety when they approach a job like that. But I think that over my life, I've made hard decisions about people who could die if I made the wrong decision. I've made decisions that have helped people to live who were about to die. I've seen a lot of people die, which nobody could do much about and for 11 years, I made decisions about all the things that presidents have to make decisions about — who gets what in the budget, things like security issues after 9/11, like my own security. So when you're used to making tough decisions, you know you have to make the tough decisions. The key to making tough decisions is to make it, not sit around and agonize about it.

OK, it’s from the Washington Post and, yes, job growth typically lags a recovery, but read this:

“The economy grew at a remarkable 8.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2003, but by October, there were 2.8 unemployed people for every job opening, up from 2.51 a year earlier and 2.25 in 2001, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Unemployment rates for managers and professionals stayed steady last year, at just under 3 percent.

“But jobless rates have risen steadily for lower-paid service occupations, from 6.4 percent in 2001 to 6.6 percent in 2002 to 7 percent last year. Unemployment in production and transportation jobs finished the year at 7.2 percent.”

And then ask yourself why George W. Bush is planning to import yet more cheap labor. Any explanations, Mr. President?

Still, you can duck reality for a while. If Dean squeaks a win in Iowa tomorrow, he'll be "perceived" as having done less well than expected. If he loses Iowa and then narrowly wins New Hampshire, he'll be the comeback kid. That seems entirely possible. Unlike Iowans and the rest of the country, Granite State Democrats know Howard Dean well, and they're voting for the dull, centrist Vermont Governor they have known for a decade, not the crazy guy who has been on the loose the last year. I have to say I see no evidence in my part of the state of a Wesley Clark surge, though that might be because it's been 50 below for the past two weeks and no one wants to get frostbite taking the Dean sign down from their yard and putting up one for Clark. I'd still bet on Dean in New Hampshire, though it will be narrower than it would have been, and it will present Mad How with awkward problems as he moves on to South Carolina. What a difference a month makes for the supposedly inevitable candidate.

But Clinton's shadow may still overwhelm the present. It's hard to say what the party became under Clinton because he was the party, and he was so notoriously hard to define. Dismissive of his message but dazzled by his success, many Democrats just hummed to themselves and looked the other way because it was working, and he was winning. "You can't erase Bill Clinton if you never embraced him in the first place," says a former official who unlike many Clinton aides really was a New Democrat. "Clinton defined the direction of the country irrespective of the party," the aide says. Clinton knew he would be the youngest ex-President since Teddy Roosevelt, who left office at age 51 and proceeded to divide his party out of bitterness over the direction it had taken. That is not a path Clinton wants to follow. He too wants a legacy, and it may be defined not by what he did in the past but by how he manages those who will be the party's future.