Kevin's new home

Ok, finally got around to changing Kevin's address. I was flabbergasted (like everybody else) to see that Kevin's blog had become the centerpiece of the new Washington Monthly site, although in retrospect it makes a lot of sense. Synergistic and whatnot.

I'll be posting more later on today. I know it's been quiet here... outside obligations have become more and more of an issue lately. That'll change.

Spainfully Obvious

(title from an old Asterix comic)

This whole controversy over Spain's election is, well, bizarre. I don't give a rat's ass about whether or not Al Qaeda managed to influence the Spanish electorate, the fact remains that significant proportions of the blogosphere are basically giving up the entire concept of democracy. That is, after all, the fundamental message behind "the Spanish should have backed their government in the face of the bombings"... that no matter how much the government has betrayed the trust of the people, those people have no right to change their choice of government, and are "cowards" for doing so. The war is more important than the democracy for which it is fought.

It's perverse. This sort of "securitizing of democracy" was about the #1 reason why the United States played merry hell with Central and South America, and a Marxist variation of this mode of thought was used to justify every Soviet intervention from Lithuania to Afghanistan. It's led to more war crimes than you can shake a bleeding severed leg at, it's about the biggest reason otherwise respectable countries end up with Presidents-for-Life, and is about the only thing that could disrupt the smooth functioning of American democracy.

This sort of behavior is absolutely reprehensible, and it provides a sobering message as to what to expect from Republicans during, and after, this election. Expect "Only Traitors Disagree With The Leader" in a thousand variations.

Good News... Very Good News

Although I'm still deeply troubled by the bombings in Madrid, I've got at least one phrase to keep my spirits up. Take it away, John:

"I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks".

He gets it. I would have never thought this possible even a year ago, but Kerry gets it.

Screw the polling numbers, they don't mean anything. This does. Bush is in far, far more trouble than I thought.

Bush goes negative

Well, that was fast. Honestly, this is silly; there's no way the effects of March anti-Kerry ads are going to be felt by November. Bush is blowing this cash for nothing.

More importantly, though, he's sacrificed the high road. That's just dumb; the best weapon a sitting president has in an election is the aura of being "above the fray" that the role of Head of State grants him; sacrificing that may be necessary when the fall rolls around, but in March? Not only will it weaken a key electoral tool, but it screws with the effectiveness of the presidency as well, as his "bully pulpit" will be even further sullied by an image of vicious partisanship.

I'm not sure which alternative is worse

The Madrid bombing (900 injured, and at least 197 dead as of last count), to be blunt, horrified me. Now, though, the question of "who did it" looms large. Instead of these bombings being being seen as clearly the work of Basque nationalists (as people had thought on Thursday), the question is now open as to who's responsible. It may be ETA (the chemical signature of the explosives corresponds with ETA) but it may well not be (the nature of the attack doesn't fit the ETA's profile).

A group affiliated with Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, but they're not credible; they also claimed responsibility for the blackout last year.

So, there are two possibilities here. First, ETA did it, which implies that the old style of attacks is dead. This doesn't necessarily mean that ETA is affiliated with Al Qaeda, although it does imply it; it may be that ETA is consciously attempting to mimic Al Qaeda. The CNN article says that they "have different goals" because the nationalism of ETA doesn't correspond with the Islamic theocratic goals of Al Qaeda, but that is really unimportant; terrorist organizations have made these pragmatic sorts of linkages for a very long time. It may well have been a response to the American War on Terror, too; a sort of "if we don't hang together we will surely hang seperately" logic would be logical in light of the war. It may also have something to do with the Chechnya conflict, as the Chechans have fairly successfully blended together Islamic fundamentalism and nationalism in ways that have (to some extent) eluded even the Arabs.

Second, Al Qaeda did it. This doesn't mean the ETA didn't have some involvement, but that Al Qaeda was the leading party. If that's the case, then the "revenge for aiding the U.S. in Iraq" scenario seems credible. The biggest problem with that scenario is that Al Qaeda didn't really have much to do with Saddam, but that doesn't really matter here, as Al Qaeda is certainly interested in the fate of Iraq now. Besides, I doubt an Al Qaeda attack in Spain would be aimed at Spanish eyes and Spanish ears- it would be aimed at potential allies as proof of Al Qaeda's remaining strength and at potential foes as an object lesson on the price of assisting the U.S. It also will create real tension and conflict in Europe, which I'm sure Osama wants; he's after a world war that Europe (until now) seemed bound and determined not to fight. Europe's significant Muslim minorities could be a powderkeg if Europe is seen as fully signing on to the United States' so-called "crusade"; the Europeans know that, and I'm sure Osama does too.

Right now, the most important job is figuring out who is responsible, so that the Spanish (and the world) know which of these scenarios they're dealing with.

Bush Really is a Uniter

Just look at who he brought together!

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, welcomed Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont who once seemed his chief political roadblock, to his headquarters here on Wednesday with an ovation by scores of staff members. The two men talked for an hour behind closed doors, guarded by a phalanx of Secret Service agents — but not before Mr. Kerry hugged Dr. Dean and shook his hand for the cameras.

Dr. Dean made no official endorsement of Mr. Kerry but Democrats close to both men said they expect it to come before the end of the month, quashing any concerns in the party that Dr. Dean would not help the ticket.

"During the campaign, we often focused on what divided us, but the truth is we have much more in common, beginning with our fervent desire to send George Bush back to Crawford, Tex., in November," Dr. Dean said in a statement after the session. "I will work closely with John Kerry to make sure we beat George Bush in November and turn our country around."

It's good to hear this... really, really good. I had been worried about Dean deciding to "take his football and go home", but in retrospect I probably shouldn't have been. Both Dean and Kerry know that the paramount concern is unseating Bush, and I think Dean can take (and undoubtedly will) take a lot of credit for energizing the party base, effectively marshalling Internet Democrats, and showing that vigorous partisanship can be both effective and financially rewarding. There's been a lot of carping about how Kerry is "sailing through" the primaries, but I think the reason he's sailing through is largely because he learned the lesson that Dean was teaching. Having learned that lesson, he's overcome the chief flaw in his old electoral strategy- his former unwillingness to take a stand against Bush.

Plus, Dean will no doubt remember that he was the candidate of choice for a lot of Democrats, and that he probably would have been the candidate had taking Bush down not been seen as so vitally important. Assuming that he'd get a plum post, as Oliver speculates, the good Doctor will have done quite nicely for himself.

It's too bad that we'll never know how he would have fared, though.

Calpundit's going pro!

Congrats, Kevin. The Washington Monthly will only benefit from your contribution.

Welcome Back to the Cold War

Or, at least, the American attitudes characterized by it. It would appear, at least according to this piece in the Toronto Star, that the United States is reverting to type in the Americas.

The United States, aided and abetted by Canada, has just sponsored a coup in Haiti. That's what the supporters of ousted president Jean-Bertrand Aristide say. "Coup" is also the word that Jamaica's government uses to describe the weekend events in Port-au-Prince.

Certainly, it's hard to argue against this analysis. Aristide was a democratically elected president — one of only two in Haiti's 100-year history. According to Larry Birns of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Aristide's Lavalas party would almost certainly have won free parliamentary elections if the opposition had allowed the elections to take place.

This, incidentally, is one of the weirder elements of the Haiti story. Aristide wanted legislative elections. It was the opposition that blocked him.

It's not weird in the slightest. Both the Soviet Union and the United States were perfectly willing to set aside elections, or support non-elected vs. elected groups, as long as the supported group was closer to their side. After the fall of the Soviet Union, of course, things were supposed to have changed: the U.S. only engaged in anti-democratic practices because of the Cold War against an implacable foe of democracy was supposed to have made it necessary, but that foe is long gone, right?

Well, maybe the "foe" isn't the same one we thought it was. Meet the face of evil:

It's also hard to understand why Washington found Aristide so loathsome. True, he spoke for, and was supported by, the poor, a characteristic that U.S. regimes always find disturbing.

Indeed, a populist leader may easily become a demagogue, particularly if the civil rights the middle classes hold so dear — the right of property, the right to criticize government — interfere with the economic rights the poor demand, such as the right to eat.

This makes sense, and seems to be the concern that is animating American opposition to Hugo Chavez, as well, as this particular charade shows that it's obviously not Chavez' contempt for democracy that is the problem. (Aristide has his problems with democracy too- witness the 2000 elections- but armed insurrection goes just a little farther than that.)

I guess the real question is, then, whether or not Guy Phillipe got a wink from a U.S. official before starting the violence.

Schroeder and Bush

Is anybody else suspicious that the weak electoral showings for the SDF in Germany will increase German/U.S. tension? After all, if American-bashing worked the first time....

U.N. Sends Peacekeepers to Haiti

According to CNN, it looks like with Aristide's departure the U.N. is going to send peacekeepers into Haiti. Fortunately, it may not be necessary; the rebel leader has said that with Aristide gone, they "don't intend to fight anymore... the only problem we had was with Aristide". I'm not going to bet money on complete stability with Aristide's ouster, especially considering that "pro-Aristide gangs" have been causing trouble in the capital, but without American support, he's ready to have that proverbial fork stuck in him.

Regardless of that, I fervently hope that Phillipe was being honest. I've been worried about Haiti for a while, and any outcome that doesn't end up with Haiti in flames is much more positive than what I've been expecting.

Political Change and Reinvigoration

Very nice piece by Stirling Newberry on Daily Kos about internet politics post-Dean.

As someone who has decided to put aside private life to pursue work in the public sector, I will tell you why: because there is nothing that we can do, here and now, that will make our lives better, our children's lives better and our nation better - than politics. For a long time politics was gridlock, say little and do less.

That's ending - with the events of the last 5 years, it is clear that action is better than inaction. What is also clear to the people on the inside - is that the old donor base is, well, old. To get a new one, they are also realizing that they have to change, as institutions, as people, as a party.....

....Right now projects are forming that will change the Democratic party at its core. We are working to draw message, ideas, energy - the high value work that Democrats have proven they are capable of - and bring them to the inside. The corresponding task for those of us who are "outside" is to learn the political system, learn the rules, the language, the restrictions, so we can begin targetting our force on issues and elections of importance. Kos is way out in front doing it - others are doing so as well.

But to make them work, it will require work. What the inside listens to is proof - we've proven we can push issues, get coverage, raise money. We have to learn what an international football player would call "finishing" - putting the ball in the net. To get a chance to do that, we have to build candidates, build coalitions, take seats on Democratic Committees. This will begin openning up the process.

With an open process creates an avenue for new ideas, and new ways of implementing old programs. It brings new faces, and new connections, a fountain of youth to restore to vibrancy the party as a progressive party.

I agree with much of this; I still think the "old school" view of politics has legitimacy, and there ARE lessons about "new politics" to be drawn from the Dean campaign.

The core idea of change and renewal, however, is the key insight here. I've been saying for a while that the Dean campaign is, in many respects, the Democratic equivalent of the Goldwater campaign for the Republicans; what I hadn't anticipated is that it will probably be 2003- not 2004- that is seen as the watershed year, because that was the year that non-traditional networks (whether grassroots or online) made their presence and importance known. One need only look at the ads on Eschaton, Calpundit or Daily Kos to see that politicians are taking these networks seriously.

Yes, Kerry is pretty much guaranteed to be the nominee. There's no doubt about that now. In most respects, though, that's what's so great about this. The Democrats don't have to lose a general election in order to be re-invigorated for a later one, like with the Goldwater and Reagan campaigns. the invigoration has already taken place, and the lessons of the Dean campaign can be applied to Kerry in the general election. Although I'm still not an enormous fan of primaries, if this is the result, then this primary may have been the best thing to happen to the Democrats since FDR.

"Junk Science"

Nice takedown of Steve Milloy and his tendentious war on "junk" (read: perfectly legitimate but conservatively incorrect) science by Tim Lambert. Lambert's done an incredible amount of excellent work debunking true junk science, particularly the work of John Lott. He's turned his gaze on Milloy, and it's withering.

Most of the critiques don't surprise me- I've looked at Milloy's work before and found it wanting. What surprised me was this revelation about Milloy and real Astroturfing:

Given all of the above, it should come as no surprise that junkscience.com is another astroturf operation. As part of the Tobacco Settlement Agreement Philip Morris agreed to release millions of documents about their operations. These detail how TASSC (The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition) was a front secretly created and funded by a PR firm acting for Philip Morris. Here is the key document (with annotations by Stewart Fist). TASSC and junkscience.com shared the same address and were both run by Milloy. Studies that find harmful effects from tobacco smoke seem to attract particularly venomous attacks from junkscience.com. PR Watch has the full story of Milloy’s history.

Ugh. The deeper you delve into the sort of thing, the worse it gets. I always have believed and always will believe that it's not the arguer but the argument that is important. Even if Milloy works for Phillip Morris, he may have a point. Still, this sort of willful misrepresentation bothers me a lot. At least with a pseudonym, you have to build your reputation honestly.

Mmmm... Delicious Astroturf

Looks like the rolling re-election squad has a new member, and he's desperately trying to protect Bush's credibility on the National Guard issue. Unfortunately, he doesn't do a very good job of it, as Hesiod ably points out: at the very least he was misleading and extraodinarily inept, but it's more likely that this letter is an out-and-out lie.

The results are predictable. The right-winger advocates and bloggers will use it to "prove" that there was nothing wrong with what Bush did. Problem is, while that might work against other bloggers, the mainstream media has their teeth in this, and they don't get distracted by something this poor. (They get distracted by Janet Jackson's nipple shield.)

(By the way...What strikes me about Bush's defenders isn't the dishonesty and duplicity. To use a more appropriate "d" word, what strikes me is the desperation. Any astroturfing campaign should at the very least try to remember that Nixon was president in 71, not Johnson. They'll accept anything nowadays.)

Harlan's War: Not So Quixotic After All?

Harlan Ellison, for those who aren't familiar with his work, is one of the greatest living science fiction writers, receiving countless awards and distinctions. He's also renowned as one of the most ideosyncratic, contrarian, yet brilliant commentators in the field; his "introductions" in the Dangerous Visions books were arguably as interesting as the material itself, and his commentary work (including the infamous "Glass Teat" column on television) is definitely an excellent read.

The thing is, Harlan is also a staunch backer of copyright law and author's rights, and no great fan of the Internet. Thus, when discovering that his books were being distributed on the newsgroup "alt.binaries.e-book" and over the Gnutella network, he decided to sue RemarQ (a newsgroup provider) and AOL (the owner of the original developers of Gnutella's client software) for "contributory copyright liability". Most commentators on this case had thought it a case of tilting at windmills, with Harlan's lawsuit being fit for little more than entertaining stories at SF conventions. I was one of these.

Apparently, we were all wrong. The Ninth Circuit Court decided to back Harlan and allow the suit to take place, reversing an earlier decision against him. This means that he will indeed be able to sue AOL and RemarQ, despite their very slight connection to the infringement. (The original infringer, one Stephen Robinson, has long settled with Mr. Ellison and his lawyers).

Honestly, I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. I admire Mr. Ellison more than almost any living author, both for his brilliant writing and outspoken (yet usually accurate) commentary. His loathing of the Internet, however, has always bothered me, and I think that partially motivates this. I don't think I like what his suit stands for, because it robs Internet service providers of the same rights granted other common carriers, such as phone companies.

If he succeeds in suing over copyright, he's also opened the door for lawsuits over content. All of a sudden the entire Internet would be subject to the content restrictions of the most repressive and regressive parts of the United States, if not the world. That's not what this place is supposed to be about, and it's one of the big problems with the DMCA; even if the DMCA is not about content, it sets a precedent that can easily be turned to content.

So I have good reason to oppose his suit. I just wish that I didn't have to disagree so deeply with someone I respect so much.

Yet Another Pseudonymity Rant

Christopher Farah is yet another in a long line of conventional journalists pissing and moaning about pseudonymity. He calls it "anonyblogging", but neologisms for ideas that already have names Just Isn't Cool, kiddies, so I'll avoid that myself.

The arguments aren't new, or remotely interesting- it's the same blend of "people don't trust pseudonymous writers" nonsense that we've all read before, usually from other bloggers desperate to try to leverage their name into some sort of credibility. (Instapundit, anyone?)

What IS interesting is that Farah's repeating the "why do they have to be so mad about it" bit. He doesn't appear to hate pseudonyms per se, but that the pseudonymous writers are criticizing mainstream writers, giving the example of Atrios' labelling of Nick Kristof as "human scum" as an example of Atrios going over the line. As commentators on Digby's blog have pointed out, though, that this is a mischaracterization- Atrios was angry with Kristof for misrepresenting liberal advocate groups' positions on prostitution, but Farah implied that it was for the story itself.

This is THE key reason why people like Atrios exist. Being a "legitimate" journalist means that you have vested interests in the field- you have interests in maintaining good relations with sources and fellow journalists, and you have interests in maintaining the good name of the field itself. You can't be as savage a critic as someone like Atrios because there's simply too much at stake- too loud a critic will find himself out in the cold. Yet at the same time, "outsiders" tend to get ignored- their non-journalistic backgrounds are used to discredit them, and their employers (who have no interest in journalistic ethics, but simply good or bad P.R.) may tell them to "lay off or get laid off".

With pseudonymity, though, one can be as critical as necessary. If the criticism is valid, then either it gets out there and the journalist changes his actions or it remains present for others to employ later when evaluating his work. If it isn't valid, it gets quickly rebutted. In neither case is the identity of the critic used as a response, which is the way it should be, because the focus should be on the validity of the original story, not the identity of the critic. It doesn't MATTER who Atrios is, because by definition he cannot employ his real-world credibility on the issue, which is the only reason why one would need to criticize the source.

(Note that none of this applies to right-wing opinion journalism, because they have no need to cultivate mainstream support, an air of objectivity, and a variety of mainstream contacts. They're operatives, not journalists, and as long as they've got their own networks they can function perfectly well within them.)

Farah and the other critics, then, is doing what anybody would do when their livelihood and friends are threatened. He's circling the wagons. He needs to eat, same as anybody else, so more power to him. There's no reason, however, why we need to pay attention to a word of it. Considering Atrios' popularity, it's pretty clear that people aren't.

By the way, as to why I haven't been posting recently... it's some level of burnout on politics, to be honest. While it's somewhat gratifying to see the truth kinda-sorta coming out on Iraqi WMDs, the way in which it's being massaged to protect the Bush Administration is nauseating, and the fact that he's almost certainly going to get away with it even more so. I still think the Democratic primaries are pretty much over and done with, with the only real question being who Kerry picks for his VP nominee and the shape of the debate.

The 9/11-centered shape of the upcoming race that Digby laid out seems perfectly understandable, if endlessly frustrating. It's the one issue on which Bush retains an advantage and all efforts are going to go towards maintaining it. The Republicans will frighten and intimidate the American public just enough (through fearmongering and leveraging of "patriotic correctness") to get a small number of independents in each battleground state to come over to their side, and in an environment of massive polarization, that'll be enough.

And, of course, once Bush no longer has to worry about re-election, the REAL fun will begin. The only thing keeping him from enacting a massively conservative agenda is November. Once he's in his second term, it's all about the "legacy".

And yet we still have Dean supporters who are declaring that they'll switch to Nader if their man doesn't win.

Is it any wonder I'm starting to get sick of the whole damned thing?

The times, they do change

It's funny, but I wasn't expecting Kerry to be the pretty much de-facto leader, if not candidate. Clark, Edwards, Dean, sure, but not Kerry. He was so down in the polls and so relatively unknown that the only plus he had, "electability", was pretty much out the window.

Two elections later, and provided he doesn't screw up badly, he's got it in the bag. Clark's hyper-focus on New Hampshire went nowhere, Edwards looks more and more like a prospective VP instead of a president, Dean is trapped in second place with the "unelectable" problem hanging around his neck like a millstone, and Lieberman is circling the drain. Kerry's problem was that he had no momentum or money, and it looks like neither are an issue at this point. (For the latter, look here). It seems like everybody is closing around him- Dems and media both. Is he as electable as he seems? Guess we'll find out in the General.

(Unless, of course, the aforementioned screwup happens, or Edwards really does come roaring out of the South.)

So, if he isn't going to get a chance to be the candidate, then what did the Dean campaign accomplish? I'm of the same opinion that a lot of commentators have been (over at Kos, for example) that he lit a fire under the Democrats and changed the terms of the debate. Any smart Democrat is going to be acutely aware that even if Kerry is the candidate, the message that Dean brought to bear isn't going anywhere- that the base is really ticked off and isn't going to stand for another 2002. He may, I think, be the Democrats' Goldwater, where the sort of realization of collective identity that conservatives went through after that campaign will come to pass again I still think he could have been their Reagan, too, but Democrats don't appear to be ready for fiercely partisan candidates.

In any case, the task now is to figure out how to ensure that Kerry doesn't get pigeonholed as another Gore, and to make sure that the activist base doesn't give up and go home because their favorite candidate probably isn't going to be the nominee. If the base stays home, Bush stays too.

The Importance of Organization

Very interesting piece on Kos about the Iowa caucuses, and the problems that the Dean people were having there. The most interesting bit was about the difference between the Edwards and Dean organizers:

I watched with amazement as a more-motivated, more-mature Edwards captain named Susan Voss (sans T-shirt, sans sideline coaches) went over to the Gephardt folks in Precinct 63, who at that point had only seven members but needed nine for viability. Susan sat down at their table, looked them in the eye, appealed to them about how Edwards is an "articulate, bright, caring person." You can tell not only that she meant it, but that she could personalize it. She didn't have any training, and it showed - it showed as authentic, that is.

Then, with grace and aplomb, she got up and said she would make room so a guy named Arturo, from the Kucinich group (also non-viable, and hoping to move Gephardt's people to them to achieve viability), could have his turn.

Meanwhile, the Deanies are sitting with their hands folded. They are not even talking to each other. No comity, no motivation. The precinct captain eventually comes over, unsure of what precisely to do with himself or how to speak to people. The Geppies are still sitting at the school library's tables at the far end of the room.

The Dean captain meanders over, stands over the Geppies, providing physical distance that is conveyed in a non-verbally and dismissive way. Worse, his main message is little more than, "C'mon, don't you want to join us?" or "Are there any questions or issues you have about the Governor?" The Geppies are literally staring at his navel, because it's hard to make eye contact with somebody whose head is three feet over your own with craning your neck.

There were six delegates to be assigned by the 60+ people who turned out at Precinct 63. Dean had 16 of the caucus-goers at the start, and ended up with 14. Kerry didn't budge much, but Edwards gained strength. Gephardt managed to cobble together the two defections from Kucinich he needed, and got one delegate, as did Dean and Kerry. But Edwards left with two, and he can thank the dynamism, assertiveness and tact of Susan Voss for that second delegate.

This may be the key problem with an insurgent campaign that is designed to attract those who aren't already involved in politics. While a lot of politicking may be somewhat farcical, there's the core reality there that focuses on how to connect with people and get them to agree with you. This can be a very difficult skill to learn; it's one of the key reasons why politics has gone so professional over the past few decades.

Still, I'm not about to declare Edwards or Kerry the nominee; Iowa's only one state, and it looks like Gephardt was largely responsible for Edwards' boost. He's out of the game, and Edwards has to run on his own merits now. His lacklustre performance during the "invisible primary" hasn't gone anywhere. While I have to admit to a certain interest in history recording that the Democratic nominee made his announcement on the Daily Show, I'm not about to call the local History Department just yet.

(Yes, I'm aware I was in the "Dean's inevitable" camp a while ago, like Matt Yglesias. I wasn't expecting the media to turn on him so savagely at the time, and I'm still stunned by it.)

So, What Now?

Kerry won Iowa, with the mysteriously revived Edwards following close behind, and Dean somehow behind the both of them. I agree with those (like Kos) that believe it's now a horserace, but I think much of this has to do with Dean simply having a bad week or so, media-wise. The money and organization are still there, but the momentum he enjoyed prior to the start of the primaries is pretty much gone, and now it's Kerry and Edwards that have it. Edwards isn't a player in NH, but this may be do-or-die for Kerry and Dean- if Dean has another bad showing he's in deep trouble, and if Kerry has a poor showing it could cause his Iowa momentum to evaporate.

Goddammit.

They're killing the Hubble.Why? Bush's "Moon mission alpha" stuff. They're also decommissioning the Shuttle, which is bizarre- you can't stop making shuttles when there is as of yet no alternative. Going to Apollo-style capsules would be a step backwards, not forwards.

Whoa

Kerry is rising like a phoenix- he's now six points ahead of Dean in the latest Zogby poll. I'm still doubtful that this will mean that he'll be a serious contender- he lost the "unofficial primary" too badly to assume that- but it will likely mean that Dean will be far more vulnerable now than he was three weeks ago.

Of course, the timing of all these supposed revelations about Dean isn't accidental, but the growing media bias against him is still pretty striking. If this keeps up, by November they'll be wearing "Bush 2004" pins.

(Hat Tip: Marshall)