While we appreciate the fear-maddened rantings of our friend "Deep Pockets", we must object to his characterization of our second-hand reportage as being bereft of context and nuance. We strive for objectivity in such things, here at the BWA Campaign Blog, believing very strongly in the theory that we win the battle for hearts and minds not when we sucessfully confuse and obfusticate, but when our ideas are better.

Also, while we sorely, grievously, wistfully miss the Washington Post, we feel we must defend our new hometown journals, and request that our Washington-based readers not make profane references toward some of New York's more "colorful" papers, such as the New York Post, which possesses one great advantage over the New York Times in that it only costs twenty-five cents.

Also, we thought it somewhat unfortunate when that mob of angry protesters stormed Karl Rove's home in nothern Virginia, but we are hard-pressed to feel sorry for the man who single-handledly orchestrated the anti-American political ruin of combat veteran and Georgia senator Max Cleland by calling into question the patriotism of a man who left three of his four limbs on the beaches of Vietnam in the service of his country.

Rejuvenated by these thoughts, we will return with more insight, analysis and cheap point-scoring on Monday.

2:57 pm | New York City

We are feeling contrarian here today at the BWA Campaign Blog, so we will bring the mighty hammer of our wrath down on Hillary Clinton, a woman we admire, for the most part, and who happens to be our new senator.

Our chief problem with many of the Democratic contenders for the party nomination months ago was that they were all being great big sycophantic cowards on the issue of the war in Iraq. Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, and even the man, John Kerry, all voted to authorize the president's horrible, ill-starred war, and all of them stayed absolutely quiet as bombs rained down on Iraqi towns and American servicemen got their legs blown off in helicopter attacks. Until Howard Dean proved that denouncing the war was NOT an act of political suicide, every one of these men (who, except for Lieberman, later claimed to be against the war) kept their mouths shut.

(In fact, Deam, for whose madness and wild resolve we still pine, once told Judy Woodruff that the blood of those American soldiers was on the hands of the president as well as those Democrats who voted for the war. She seemed startled.)

Last night Hillary Clinton told Larry King that she didn't regret her vote in favor of going to war:

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

Like the rest of the pack, Clinton showed no spine at all when faced with a warlike commander-in-chief and a nation seemingly thirsty for vengeance after 9/11. It is our belief, however, that the American people, while excessively foolish at times, are not all that willing to dip their hands in blood up to the elbows for no good reason. Almost half the country realized it was wrong at the time, and even more seem to think that now, according to poll numbers. Given that the administration is still doing everything it can to mentally connect the Iraq war to the 9/11 attacks in the public's mind, these numbers seem to show a remarkable capacity for understanding that waging war on one Arab nation simply because the president hates their mad, tyrannical leader does nothing whatsoever to increase American safety one bit. It would be nice if the Democrats would stop whining and actually stand up for the things they know to be true when the chips are down.

Note to Howard Dean. Come back. Somehow. We will send you $15. Bring George McGovern with you.

11:44 am | New York City

It has been many days since we last updated this blog, alert readers. We are suffering from malaise. Alas.

In a sense, we feel we are owed forgiveness, given that the doldrums of the political season have begun, and are likely to last until the last gasps of summer. However, our conscience has been pricking us, and we feel undeserving of your love and affection. Here, have some numbers:

General Election (CNN / Gallup)
Bush: 51 %
Kerry: 46%

General Election (Washington Post / ABC News)
Bush: 48 %
Kerry: 43%

(The inclusion of Ralph Nader tends to skew these numbers Bushwards a bit, but it is still our fervent hope that his candidacy is just a weird dream we are having. We also dreamed that Howard Dean was the presumptive nominee for months and months, and that they want John McCain to run on the Democratic ticket. We have GOT to lay off the sauce.)

It appears that Kerry's support is still weak across the land, based partly on people's perceptions of Bush's "strength on terrorism." Speaking of strength, and a mighty show-of-arms, the death count on Iraq is, we believe, up to 676. That's American deaths only, mind you. We shall forbear to remark.

On the topic of Nader, and his quixotic, gin-fueled candidacy, he continued on this week, pushing his bizarre theory that there is no practical difference between the candidates on the major issues, as well as his weird and murky ideas that the hordes of Republicans clamoring to vote for a former Green-party candidate and anti-corporate activist will sink the money-laden ship of the Bush campaign. From the New York Times:

Some Democrats have voiced hope that Mr. Nader might drop out of the race this year if he can influence some of Mr. Kerry's stands on issues. But Mr. Nader said on Monday that he would not quit under any circumstances.

He said he had no regrets about running in 2000 and maintained that this year he could persuade many Republicans to at least stay away from the polls on Election Day, given their "seething rage" at Mr. Bush because of the budget deficit.

The only other political news of note is the continued hullaballoo in certain circles over 'Plan of Attack,' the new book by Bob Woodward, currently being serialized in the Washington Post. We have followed these article faithfully, as we are a (sometime) fan of Woodward. As near as we can tell, the main points are these:

• Colin Powell is awesome. Also, he is a statesmen, and regrets war.
• Dick Cheney is off his rocker, a little.
• The President is forceful, and has beliefs.
• There was slim to no chance of us NOT going to war in Iraq.

None of this should come as a surprise to longtime readers of this blog. We hope to someday serve as a conflicted, high-level source for Mr. Woodward's book on the Chelsea Clinton presidency and the moon-mining robot scandal.

12:09 pm | New York City

There was no update yesterday. The appearance of the president on television Monday night left us drained and swooning, unable to blog coherently all day. We are like that.

This is an interesting item from Deconstructor (by way of Political Wire):

While searching whitehouse.gov with Google recently, I came upon a curious result. The White House website used to contain a file named "bullshittosatisfypeople", although sadly it no longer seems to be available, nor does Google have a cache of it. I was hoping for some much-needed insight into just what the hell it is the administration has been up to lately.

We can't imagine what this means.

In more significant news, Kerry appears to be stepping up the heat, giving Bush a little chin music at his appearance here in the Big Apple. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Stopping just short of calling the president a liar, Kerry routinely accuses Bush of "running up a truth deficit" and compiling "a long list of broken promises."

"The American people have a right to the truth," Kerry said Wednesday, in a characteristic jab at a town hall meeting in New York City. Afterward, he questioned Bush's candor during Tuesday's prime-time news conference, which was dominated by discussion of Iraq.

"The American people are owed a directness and an honesty about how we protect our troops and how we stand up for our interests,'' Kerry told reporters.

As always, we encourage our readers to read the entire story for themselves, rather than simply accepting the warmed-over-1994 cheap liberal filter that we regularly screen everything through, here at the BWA Campaign Blog. However, we should warn you that the free registration process at the LA Times website is even more onerous and sadistic than the Washington Post's. Next they will request samples of hair and urine. Politely and inexorably. On second thought, just get your political news from us. Lay back. Relax. We will never mislead you.

12:22 pm | New York City

Once again, the BWA Campaign Blog experiences a long and inexplicable drought. We apologize, alert readers. The truth of the matter is that we fell, and badly injured our right arm, which we use to type, as well as to shake our fist angrily about the state of the nation. And no, we were not drinking.

In a welcome break from the Kerry "veepstakes," the news media have begun Kerry Cabinet second-guessing, including this mention of Richard Holbrooke for Secretary of State. In a sense, this is even further off the curve of useful news than wondering who Kerry will pick to be his running mate, so we feel honor-bound to scoff and deride. However, we do kind of like Holbrooke, so we'll give it a miss.

And speaking of the veepstakes, the relentless beating of the McCain drum seems increasingly weird and purposeless. From Politics1:

Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, rebellious Senator John McCain (R-AZ) appeared to finally reject any possibility that he would agree to be John Kerry's VP runningmate on the Democratic ticket. "No, no and no. I will not leave the Republican Party ... I will not be Vice President of the United States under any circumstances," said McCain.

Hmm. This ambiguous and cleverly-worded denial is sure to raise suspicion. We look forward to more breathless coverage of this story.

And, in the Taking Credit Department, we are pleased that Friday's angry rant over Justice Scalia's fascist power-mongery mobilized the media elite. Bob Herbert of the New York Times took up our torch of indignation yesterday:

If this had been an old-time Hollywood movie, the Supreme Court justice would have turned a kindly face toward the marshal and said, in an avuncular tone: "No, no. We don't do that sort of thing in this country. Please return the recordings."

But this is the United States in the 21st century where the power brokers have gone mad. They've deluded themselves into thinking they're royalty, not public servants charged with protecting the rights and interests of the people. Both recordings were erased. Only then was the reporters' property returned

When agents acting on behalf of a Supreme Court justice can just snatch and destroy information collected by reporters, we haven't just thumbed our nose at the Constitution, we've taken a very dangerous step in a very ugly direction. The depot at the end of that dark road is totalitarianism.

Chagrined and cowed by such powerful criticism (chiefly that of this web-journal, no doubt), Scalia issued an apology to the two reporters whose basic freedoms he violated. We are always pleased to help out our sisters-in-arms.

3:21 pm | New York City

Hold us back, alert readers. Did anyone see this insanity?

First Amendment specialists questioned the legal basis yesterday for a deputy US marshal -- apparently acting on the orders of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia -- to confiscate and erase tape recordings made by two reporters invited to hear the justice speak at a high school gymnasium.

Dear Justice Scalia, repeat after me. We live in the United States of America. You can't do things like that, because it's stupid and vile and counter to the spirit of everything this country is supposed to be good for, and you are a Supreme Court justice, for the love of Mary. You are not a king, or a grand vizier, or a secret overlord. What you are is a fascist and sick-hearted stain on what's left of our best ideas, and the problem with...

SCREECH

*pant, pant*

Excuse us, alert readers, we were swept away by our own indignation there for a moment.

We know. This is supposed to be a politics blog, yet here we are, for two day's running, barking like a lefty about all sorts of gibberish. Well, we are a little on edge this week, and these Nazi hyenas running the government have been getting to us. Our apologies. Back on Monday.

3:15 pm | New York City

Normally we don't care for Maureen Dowd, as we find her to be one of those pointlessly snarky columnists who are more interested in how clever they are than how careful or right a point they are making. That having been said, we liked her column today, mostly for its relentless hammer-beating of the Bush administration over their ill-fated adventures in Iraq.

Other items in the news which officially incensed us were the following remarks by Senator Saxby Chambliss, a worm-hearted man who colluded with Karl Rove to drive Max Cleland from the Senate in a particularly vile display of treachery and lies:

"It's incumbent upon all Americans to rally around the leadership of this country in times of great crisis in the world when we are the leader of the free world and not to incite the other side," said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, even as he acknowledged that the administration "underestimated just how difficult and complex the job in Iraq would be."

What country does this tax-bloated hobgoblin think he's living in? These people make us see magenta sometimes. It is distinctly un-American to "rally round" a leader that one feels is wrong down to his very bones, and someone should explain that to some of these knuckle-draggers.

Also, though we are relying fairly heavily on the New York Times today, we were pleased to receive this from alert reader Jenny Miller:

I cant believe the [New York Times] is a dollar. I will always be true to the Post, wherever the winds may take me.

Watch the gates for us tonight, alert readers. We are exhausted down to our marrow, and do not intend to sleep lightly.

1:12 pm | New York City

The weather turned unexpectedly beautiful yesterday, here in midtown Manhattan, and we were seized with sudden optimism during our lunch break. Then we got sad again, because we miss reading the Washington Post. The New York Times is an excellent newspaper, don't get us wrong. It's just not for us. Also, it costs a buck, instead of thirty-five cents.

However, we are starting to follow New York politics. Not inter-borough transit chicanery or anything complicated like that, just the mayor's office and rats and stuff. Give us a few months to get up to speed. Maybe we'll launch the "BWA NYC Politics Blog" and even less people will read it.

Where were we? Oh yes, the state of the nation.

We are still fighting the temptation to run the numbers, but, sometimes we succumb. The latest Rasmussen poll has Kerry up six points from last week, as of yesterday:

Election 2004 (Rasmussen)
Kerry: 48
Bush: 42

We know, we know, we promised. It won't happen again.

And in the constant incessant low-level thrumming push of McCain for vice-president news, USA Today reports that Kerry mentioned McCain favorable four times in a major policy speech at Georgetown yesterday. Really. Four times. No shrinking violet he.

That's about all we've got this morning. The wires are quiet, although we suspect the chattering about Condoleezza Rice's testimony to the 9/11 commission will begin soon enough. We have thoughts on this phenomenon as well, but we will refrain from sharing them for the moment.

1:12 pm | New York City

Rick Melendrez Edition

We remember the golden days of the BWA Campaign Blog (February, 2004), when site traffic was up, political news was coursing in from all sides, most of it interesting, and people sent us thoughtful, and sometimes foolish, emails. Then Howard Dean fell to the wolves, the snows came, and the party ended. Frankly, it's all we can do to troll for tracking poll numbers every morning.

Well, enough living in the past. We'll ramp it back up again by September, we're betting.

For now, we continue our selfless watchfulness of the dark dragon's heart of the Bush administration...

:: ROVE WATCH ::

Karl Rove was in El Paso last night, scouring the home country for money to wage war upon fairness and decency. The BWA Campaign Blog's Gold Star Award goes to El Paso Democratic Party Chair Rick Melendrez for his pugilistic remarks in the El Paso Times:

"The sooner Karl Rove comes and goes out of El Paso, the better. Let him take his bag of money and run," Melendrez said.

A large demonstration against Rove's visit is not possible, he said, because Democrats did not learn soon enough to apply for a permit.

"A handful of us will be there to let George W. Bush's bagman know how El Paso Democrats feel about him," Melendrez said.

Lay on, MacDuff, and be damned him who first cries 'Hold! Enough!'

And, while we're on the topic of people hacking on those we dislike, we appreciated the cracks on Wonkette today directed at ABC's The Note:

The Note is now officially the Dave Eggers of political newsletters: Long-winded, cutesy, self-refential, and mysteriously immune from criticism. Oh, and no one actually finishes reading their stuff.

(For those who don't follow this sort of crap closely, Wonkette is a snarky, usually-funny, largely pointless politics blog that everyone loves. The Note is, essentially, the same thing, except ABC pays for it.)

We suppose this counts as a two-fer, since she got in a dig at Dave Eggers as well, but we have lost interest in the whole topic.

11:30 am | New York City

We are back , following a long and trying absence. Did you miss us?

Please note our new dateline. We have moved the editorial office of the BWA Campaign Blog to New York. We felt that working two blocks from the White House did not represent a great enough risk of being destroyed in an attack by terrorists or hostile space Martians, so now we work two blocks from the United Nations. Come and get us, evil-doers.

It may have also been necessary to move because of some unpleasantness with Karl Rove, but we are forbidden from discussing this matter due to legal constraints.

Now back to work...

Regular readers will recall our disdain for "veepstakes" stories, but we do enjoy the continual beating of the McCain gong by the news media. The Boston Globe reports that Kerry aides "hypothesize that by choosing McCain as a running mate, Kerry would energize the election, create a weeks-long buzz in the media, and, perhaps most importantly, attract the support of swing and independent voters from both parties." You guys are just making this stuff up, right?

The gin-fueled Nader candidacy has apparently run aground in the Pacific Northwest, with Nader failing in his initial attempt to get on the ballot in Oregon. He needed to get one thousand signatures at a single event, but not enough people showed up to his rally. Nader blamed a basketball game for the poor turnout, but we are hoping it was the words of ex-hero and madman Howard Dean, who urged his supporters not to support the Nader candidacy yesterday.

In other Nader news, Reuters reports that Kerry is planning a secret meeting with Nader in a Washington-area organic produce store. Possibly.

"I'm going to talk directly to people who in the past have been inclined to support Ralph Nader," [Kerry] told reporters. "I'm not going to attack him in any way. I'm just going to try to talk to his people and point out that we've got to beat George Bush."

Good, good. Speak softly to the activists and make calming motions with your hands.

We are exhausted after all that pontificating. We know, we know, it wasn't that much. But our endurance is shot all to hell. We no longer have a television set turned to CNN right over our desk at work, which makes us feel strangely nervous and off-balance. Also we are now forced to read the New York Times every day at lunch instead of the Washington Post. These things take time to settle.

11:30 am | Washington DC

Saddened by the lack of good cheer on the wires, we failed to post our insights and thoughts yesterday, leaving our readers adrift, like so many small rafts on a darkening sea, uncertain and afraid.

We apologize for this state of affairs. We can only excuse ourselves by explaining that the editorial offices of the BWA Camapign Blog are in the process of relocating to New York City. This may be our final entry datelined "Washington DC" for some time. Your forgiveness is appreciate during this transitional period.

We picked an opportune time to move, it seems, as little of consequence is happening in the world of politics. Lots of fairly heavy stuff on the policy scene, but we try to avoid those things, lest we be required to do some thinking. Rice is going to testify before the 9/11 commission. That should be a real circus.

And, although we have sworn off numbers for the time being, the new Los Angeles Times poll has gotten the chattering class all a-twitter.

Election 2004 (LA Times)
Kerry: 49
Bush: 46

These numbers shift slightly when Nader is added in, with Kerry dropping two points, and Bush doing the same. We can't figure out why Nader is pulling numbers from Bush. It could indicate some subterreanean shift in political thinking, but we suspect it's just bad polling, or, more likely, the accurate reading of foolish minds and hearts.

That's all from Washington. We will continue the fight from loftier heights.