QUEER AS A $3 BILL

RNC Ken Mehlman is gay and should be ridiculed for it at every opportunity. Why? Because all's fair in love and war. In particular, every attack on DNC Chairman Dean should answered with the information that he's married with kids, not like some people we could mention. With repetition, the RNC's chairman's sexual orientation will become late-night comedy fodder, and this will be a significant tactical advantage.

The Jeff Gannon case is different. Gannon is a prostitute, pimp and pornographer. Gay, yes, but also a criminal. In addition to probably breaking local, state and federal law with his Internet prostitution site, Gannon is obviously also guilty--if indeed this pathological liar is or was a "part-time marine"-- of conduct prejudicial to good order, discipline and morale which bring discredit to the U.S. Marine Corps. More likely, Gannon was only a pretend marine, as he was a pretend reporter, but if he was successful in pimping out any young, vulnerable servicemen for his escort service, he was exposing them to the harshest penalties, including hard labor, brig or stockade time, foreiture of all pay and pensions, and dishonorable discharge. Marines and other service members have been discharged for consensual sodomy; I hate to even imagine what the Corps would do to a guy caught peddling his ass for money on the Internet.

The "Gay Prostie" angle of the Gannon story needs to be pushed, and pushed hard. Without that component, the story has no real legs. You may feel that prostitution should not be a crime, but it IS a crime in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Ask, and ask again, why a male prostitute was given special privileges to pose as a reporter by the White House. Ask why press secretary McClellan was seen in Texas gay bars in the mid-nineties. Finally, ask why Bush likes to surround himself with jock-strap faggots.

If the president is a homo, the public has a right to know.

The press doesn't want to cover this story, so we need to rub their noses in it, the way you rub a dog's nose in shit. This isn't a story about hypocrisy. This is a story about the president using a pimp.

Ho, Ho, Ho

I told you Dean was going to be the DNC honcho, but you wouldn't listen.

Rich Bond and other GOP galoots have been running with line, "I think it's a scream." Very funny, frat boy. But what about your RNC chairman? I mean it was nice you picked someone who shops for underwear at Victoria Secret, but why not pick a woman? Dean, at least, is married, with kids, like a lot of the so-called normal people you claim to represent. What's with this Ken Mehlman, a 37-year-old charter member of the He-man Woman Hater's Boys Club? Personally, I can tell you I'd a lot rather go deer hunting with Howard than play raquetball with Mehlman. You have to shower together after, right? What if I dropped the soap?

Let's face it, Rich. I know Mehlman's been busy running campaigns, but 37 years seems like a long time to look for a girlfriend, you know what I'm trying to say? I know Mehlman's not gay--god forbid I should even think such a thing--because he's been actively trying to flush gay civil rights down the men's room crapper behind the Iwo Jima momument for years. But I can't help wonder, what ELSE has he been doing behind the Iwo Jima momument? Remember that gay-bashing GOP congressman they caught back there, the one they called the leader of the Oral Majority?

If you want to make jokes about the DNC chairman, you'd better first get rid of the one you've got over at the RNC.

Because RNC Chairman Mehlman is, you know, just a little "funny."

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

TIME FOR SOME TOUGH GUYS

The 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections were damned close.

There is no doubt that the GOP had a little of the best of it going for them in Fla. all three times. They cheated, but how much? If we had a Democratic governor there, we would have cheated too.

I believe that 2004 was just about as fair as elections always are, which is not entirely. Joe Kennedy begged, borrowed, bought and stole every vote he could for his son Jack, but as the victorious boy wisecracked, his rich daddy was "damned if he'd pay for a landslide." Hubert Humphrey, the liberal that year, got screwed, blued and tattooed by some tough Irish boys and their pals in the WV primary. The media loved Jack and covered up his mistakes.

So what else is new? When it happens to the GOP, it's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I say, let's stop whining and start winning. If you can't take a hard punch in the face and a dirty kick to the gizzard, you don't belong in politics. I say again, I like what the Doc says about fighting off the ropes. If there was ever a guy the Democrats need inside the tent pissing out, it's Howard Dean. His famous scream says something about the guy--he'd rather be James Carville, coaching the troops, than Bill Clinton, basking in the limelight. And you know what? I like him much better as DNC chair than as candidate in 2008.

The candidate in 2008 should be John Kerry. Otherwise it looks like we made a mistake the first time, which we didn't. Better still would be Gore-Kerry. We don't need any more new guys; we need guys who have proven they can stand up to beating. I like Hillary, a lot, but this is no time for a science experiment. We don't know if a woman can be elected president, and why would we pick 2008 to find out?

We have to win at the grass-roots level, which doesn't just mean seats in Congress. It means city council, county commission, judgeships, and water board member. Voter registration and GOTV are not everything, as Robert Parry points out, but they are the without which nothing of Democratic victory. Combined with an issue that the average person can understand--like increasing the minimum wage to $14/hour--the Dems can run the table again.

DEAN FOR DNC

I say the guy deserves it. He and his supporters did less sitting on their hands than any defeated Democratic Party faction in history, left or right. They poured money and energy into Kerry's Campaign as if they had been for him all along.

Harry Reid is exactly the right guy for senate minority leader. He is well-liked by many Reps, which could come in handy since they run the place, and he is a wizard at legislation. But bipartisanship is not what we need at the DNC.

McCaulliffe was a great fundraiser and a good party chairman. But Dean can succeed where McCauliffe failed as a spokesman for party ideals.

If Dean is sincere about representing Democrats in all 50 states, he will win the support of the state party chairs and be the next head of the Democratic National Committee.

WE WIN ONE

Dems picked up a seaton Dec 3 in a Louisiana district Bush won by 58%.

We're gonna need a lot of these. It's a long road ahead.

There were two seats up in Louisiana. In one, the Dems were bitterly divided and lost. In the other, the Reps were bitterly divided and lost. Why does this come as no surprise?

That's why I'm glad to see John Kerry acting like a candidate. When we come as close as we did last November, why the hell wouldn't you run the same play again? The voters really only got to know him for about six months, which is why Team Bush was able to exploit anxiety about who he was, what he stands for, and what he would do. Every Dem in the country was for Kerry in October; now it seems that every Dem is against him.

I say we're better off with the devil we know, esp. if we can settle on a candidate early, the way the GOP did, John McCain nothwitstanding, in 2000. The 2008 GOP nomination could be a real brawl; if we just KEEP our act together (we already got it together in 2004), we should be well-poised for victory.

VICE PRESIDENT GRAHAM

VICE PRESIDENT GRAHAM

I have little doubt that Graham would already BE vice president, had Al Gore done the sensible thing last time. In retrospect, the notion that Lieberman would help more in FL than Graham is as asinine as any campaign decision ever made.

The Lieberman pick was too clever by half--a Hail Mary pass that was supposed to help with Florida, fund-raising and Gore's largely non-existent "Clinton problem." The obvious choice is usually best, and Gore missed the boat by trying to be too smart.

Teamo boss James P. Hoffa personally lobbied Kerry on behalf of Dick Gephardt with these words, "He needs somebody that's high profile, somebody that can go out and carry a state, somebody that has a constituency, somebody that can deliver." This is an accurate assessment, and it rules out political unknowns like Vlisack of IA. Hoffa's description fits Gephardt, but it fits Graham even better.

DO WHAT'S RIGHT

One huge factor--not mentioned above but certainly true of Dickie G--is fitness for the job. When Kerry tires of figuring out the geometry of a complicated pool shot, he may simply try to do what's right. Who would make the best president, if it came to that?

The answer is not John Edwards. You simply cannot claim that a first-term senator with no other experience in government is the most qualified to lead the country in time of war.

Graham is one of only a few who would possess instant credibility as commander-in-chief because of his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Graham has been near the center of power for a long time. Cheney has made a mess out of U.S. intelligence; Graham has the knowledge and background to restore needed credibility and efficiency to the CIA and related agencies.

This would be a sober, grey-haired administration. In a year that will likely turn on the question of who makes us feel safer, that's not a bad thing.

HIGH-PROFILE

You can argue that a complete unknown is acceptable as vice president because he or she will be famous anyway within a month. However, the issue is not simply name recognition but acceptance. Hoffa is right to argue that the VP should already have broad support before the pick. Johnson, Humphrey, Mondale and Gore all added heft because of their previous achievements. Graham has been a legislator, governor and senator. He has a distinguished and bipartisan reputation. He spent a lot of that popularity blowing the whistle on Bush's then-popular war policies, but events have proven him to be correct.

GOING OUT AND CARRYING A STATE

There are no slam-dunks here, although Byrd of WV and Breaux of LA are probably the closest to a sure thing. Graham, Edwards and Bayh would all turn red states competitive. But Graham is by far the winningest, and his state was the closest context last time out. Winning in Fla. will not be easy because of the GOP death-grip on the electoral machinery, and a Damned Yankee at the top of the ticket doesn't help. But this is Graham's home turf and he's never lost here.

Since contesting any red state involves risk, why not choose the one with the biggest reward? Bush-Cheney could afford to lose WV, IA, and LA. They would find the loss of Indiana or North Carolina harder to recover from, but still not impossible.

However, lose Florida, and it's game over, man.

FIRST DO NO HARM

Today, it looks like Dicky G. for VP.

For a guy like Kerry, who likes to keep the ball on the ground, Gephardt is the logical choice. An eagle scout as a young man--and a boy scout in public life--Dicky G. is the least likely candidate to produce any Ferraro-like distractions and surprises.

It's not at all clear that he can bring along Missouri, but his chances of doing so are better than Edwards' chances of carrying North Carolina, not because he is a more attractive candidate than Edwards but because Missouri is easier to win. More important, Gephardt is much more fully qualified to be vice-president than Edwards, who can point only to George Bush as an example of a candidate with as little experience as the first-termer from NC. Quayle, as he was trying to point out before getting hammered to the mat by Lloyd Bentsen's "I knew Jack Kennedy" riposte, had a full 12 years in the congress before presuming to the vice-presidency. (And it does matter. Quayle would have been more effective president than GW Bush).

I'd like to believe that the complete lack of buzz about Gen. Clark is part of an elaborate head-fake, but I fear that Kerry has dumped him from the list, perhaps because of Clark's complicity is spreading intern rumors about Kerry during the primary. Frankly, I think Kerry should learn to take a joke. A habit of low-road mud-slingin' politics is a good thing in a vice-presidential aspirant.

But Dickie G. is also no slouch when it comes to using the hatchet. His "miserable failure" mantra about Bush. still a most excellent Google bomb, certainly can bear more repetition. But Gephardt's greatest addition to the Kerry ticket is the boost he'll give across the board Democratic Party unity. The rank and file is more unified and outraged than the Democratic Party leadership, and Gephardt will help cement the base and the top of party together in every state of the union. His long-standing personal contacts with not only every Democratic congressman but also former Democratic congressional candidates, most of whom still hold elective office or are otherwise active in politics and his outstanding support from mainstream industrial and craft unions are simply unmatched by any other VP prospect, with the possible exceptions of Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy.

Dick Gephardt is fully vetted and will be accepted as prima facie qualified by the jackals of the press corps. His politics are moderate. He will be a great fundraiser in every state. And he's a team player who's not afraid to swing the hatchet.

On the down side, he won't help much if at all with the Deanies, Greenies and Teenies. He lacks the TV pizzazz of either Edwards or Clark. Except in his own St. Louis district, he's made a habit of losing elections, as a two-time presidential aspirant and as GOP congressional whipping boy, c. 1994-2004.

But he won't HURT the ticket, and you can't say that with certainty about about any of the others. Edwards, Vilsack and Clark are all new to the national stage and would get a helluva working over by more than 3,000 dirt-digging reporters and their GOP allies.

Several other names have been floated, including GOP Sen. (and Clinton Defense Secretary) Cohen of Maine, former Senator Sam Nunn of GA, and Sen. Evan Bayh of IN. Of these, the Repubican Cohen is the most liberal.

Nunn would bring along another trainload of gravitas and serve (with President Carter) as an effective rebuttal to Zell "I want my name on a carrier" Miller. Kerry, with an ADA rating in the stratosphere, would do well to reach out to conservative Democrats. Nunn would be the best choice in this respect (looking both at politics and the good of the country). I don't think the Dems can carry GA, but the Nunn choice would certainly nail Ralph Reed's feet to the floor there.

Bayh has a famous name and a rock-crusher record of beating the GOP in a tough, tough state. In 1998, he cruised to a 64% victory statewide while Dickie G. was struggling to get 56% in the Democratic-leaning Missouri Third District. The last time the Dems won IN was 1964 ("Meet the Beatles"), buy Bayh could change that. He's got some liabilties but there is little doubt that this pick would give the GOP constipation all along the Chi-Pitts corridor. It's not clear how he would survive national press scrutiny.

The choice of a Nunn, Breaux or Bayh is tempting, but any of these might try the patience of what we can now call the Michael Moore wing of the party and produce an automatic GOP commercial where the two Dems would debate against each other. Dickie G. is an honest-to-god Democrat who is nevertheless known for listening to all sides and being desirious of finding the center of the road. I would prefer Clark or Graham, but Kerry has to spend four years with the guy if he wins and I think he likes Dickie G. the best of all.

THE CURE

Kerry wisely cancelled campaign appearances this week in deference to the funeral ceremonies for former president Reagan, praising Reagan for his "non-partisanship" at every opportunity.

This deft and unanswerable thrust was Clintonian in both its subtlety and deadliness toward the snarling Bush-Cheney Campaign. Clinton himself, as he often does, gave Democrats a heads-up on how to act with an unstinting eulogy of Reagan.

Personally, I felt a lot worse about Smarty Jones losing, and I don't mind saying so. But then I'm not running for anything.

Here's the key fact: Kerry ISN'T RUNNING against Reagan. Indeed, quite the opposite, he is competing for the millions of Democratic votes that went for Reagan 20 years ago and for the millions of others who would have been Reagan Democrats had they been old enough to vote.

The cure for Nader, the cure for the Florida felon purge, and the cure for Ralph Reed's technologically superior GOTV operation is simple: win big.

To do that, Kerry needs lots of Reagan Dems AND passionate support from Howard Dean's Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. (Yes, I know it was Wellstone. But let's concentrate on people who are alive, at least until after the election).

Bush's stature is diminishing weekly. It will have to diminish further. Not to put to fine a point on it, he'll steal the election if it's close.

John Kerry rose above all that is petty and small this week while at the same time delivering an elegant groin kick.

You gotta love that. You just gotta.

HE LOOKS FRENCH

John Breaux is that rare politician who could deliver the election to John Kerry practically single-handedly and therefore deserves at least a look as a potential vice-presidential running mate.

Although decried by some Democrats for his centrist-right views, Breaux is in truth much more liberal than John McCain. He is similar to Bentsen and Lieberman. In the 2000 Congress, McCain's voting record received a 0--that's zero--from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and a high 86 from the American Conservative Union. Breaux's scores were 50 and 40.

Like McCain, Breaux is one of only a few politicians who could deliver his home state. Whereas Edwards and Graham would put their states in play, Breaux on the ticket would win Lousiana. If everything else stayed the same--and allowing for GOP gains in the census--this would erase Bush's theoretical electoral college edge and begin the campaign with exactly 269 red states and 269 blue states. Even without a homerun ball in Florida, Ohio or Missouri, the Democrats could win simply claiming any of the small states that are rightfully theirs: WV, NH and NV.

Breaux is immensely popular in Lousiana and Washington. If he and Bush had been rival rush captains, Breaux's fraternity would have been larger. This was put to the test in the surprising post-November victory of Mary Landrieu in 2002 which was in many respects a duel between the credibility of the principal Democratic and GOP endorsers, Breaux and Bush.

Breaux's charm and warmth would be a welcome addition to the Kerry ticket. As a southern moderate, Breaux could make trouble for Bush throughout the south, esp. a few miles north in Arkansas and in the panhandle region of Florida. But his biggest contribution would be to allow John Kerry to concentrate on 49 other states.

KERRY TV CLICKING IN?

Two polls in two days from the battleground states of Fla and OH show Kerry in the lead. The seven point spread in Ohio is esp. notable since this state went GOP by four last round.

Very little from the wise guys in the press about the Kerry spots because they don't fit the Dems are stumblebums story line they're so enamored with. But the Kerry Campaign's decision to "go positive" may have been strategically very wise.

After all, the race is really about who's the better commander-in-chief, isn't it?

To the extent that it is, the race for vice-president may be the same. Clark is the standout in this category. John McCain is getting a lot of talk, but I can't help but see this as "what if Joe Dimaggio had played in Fenway Park"-style idle speculation.

Still, IF he McCain were the nominee, it would be game over, man. AZ's ten electoral votes--which are ordinarily safe GOP--would deliver the race to Kerry if all the other states voted as they did in 2000. But McCain's across the board appeal to independents and disaffected Republicans in every battleground state is just as important. Above all, I think the choice would reflect enormous credit upon Kerry, esp. when contrasted to the mean-spirited-working-on-toxic partisanship of today's GOP. The issue of international terrorism, which could become far more dangerous than even it is today, is really too important to be left to Karl Rove's next visual event or Tom Delay's next fundraising letter to the hate-blinded "base."

Like Kerry, McCain campaigns on his character rather than any particular issue. Looking at the latest Ohio poll, it's hard to fault that strategy.

THE CASE FOR GRAHAM

Florida seems to have tightened up, according to this Orlando Sentinel story. Scribes Mark Silva and Jim Stratton quote a poll that was fielded 4/29 through May 3 showing Kerry 48, Bush 46, Shitbird Nader 3, adding that said poll has been confirmed by others.

If this is really the Fla environment, then anyone in the Kerry Campaign with access to a pocket calculator would have to love Graham. He's the most popular politician in Fla history and most comfortable in a necktie with gators and oranges and such printed on it. That's gotta help come November.

If Bush loses Florida, he'll be in the outhouse looking up. There's basically no way he can make up that kind of electoral deficit except by doing something wildly improbable, like carrying California or Illinois and Penn.

Like the other JFK, Kerry may just do the math and lock down a key state. As with all southern states, winning Fla means getting a high turnout from blacks and slowing the flow of blood from the sizeable and significant peckerwood bloc. Getting more votes from Jews is NOT the key. If winning Florida is important to you, you put a Floridian on the ticket. And, as freshman Sen. Nelson himself has said, there's really only one choice.

Graham's assets do not end with Florida. While obviously not a thriller on TV, he is very knowledgeable, respected and risk-averse. If you're looking to stay away from the Howard Dean escaped mental patient scream, Graham's your man.

On the downside, many of the killer bees in the national press enjoy ridiculing Graham, and they'll have a daily supply of highly fertilized super soil fed to them daily. Like Gore, Graham is a dignified man with a distinguised record of service that can be twisted, trashed, and trivialized by the flesh-eaters on the campaign planes. In a memorable typo, ABC's The Note last year refered to Wesley Clark's 49th birthday, getting his age wrong by a decade. No one would make that mistake with Graham, whose sonorous gravity might weigh down, instead of lifting up, a ticket that's already pretty heavy on the gravitas sauce.

I think the atmospherics favor Clark. But one fact keeps bubbling up to the top: Win Florida and you win everything.

It's Clark

Dem radio address today, Meet the Press tomorrow...

...no accident.

Key variables:

Looks good as commander-in-chief. Voters will accept him as qualified. Clark leads the pack here, with serious competition only from Bill Clinton and John McCain, neither of whom will take the job.
Turning red state blue: Only a tiny handful of candidates, led by Breaux of LA and Byrd of WV, could for sure do this. Edwards, Gephardt and Graham would make their states more competitive, but no guarantees. Clark would put Arkansas in play and help with swing voters and Reagan Democrats everywhere.
Debate with Cheney Clark matches up perfectly, war record, healthy youthful appearance. Fourth purple heart and second silver star can't hurt the ticket.
National TV experience Clark is great on television; that's why CNN paid him more than he ever made as a four-star general. His primary campaign provided an excellent tune-up for the real thing.
Backup man, attack dog Clark doesn't have the natural appetite for this of a Howard Dean or the years of experience doing it of a southern politician, but he brings great dignity and credibility to the task.

It's Clark. Just gots to be.

BUSH, ROVE, TOILET-BOUND

That cracking sound you hear is the "Bush Wins" story line about to fall through the ice. Most of what The Note (ABC News) calls "The Gang of 500"--writers, pols, consultants and wiseacres who talk out of the corner of their mouths--thought until recently that Bush was unbeatable.

The crack Bush Team, led by the "genius" Karl Rove and backed by limitless GOP bucks--so the story line went--would grind the hapless Democrats into dust.

But the GOP is in trouble. They know it, and it's only a matter of time before the rest of the Washington Wise Guys figure it out.

One of the first to do so was CBS's political editor, Dick Meyer, who penned a column yesterday asking the heretical question, "Have Bush and Rove Lost Their Mojo?"

Within 24 hours, ABC News was reporting (via its influential insider online newsletter) "the consensus view...that Bush could lose."

It is natural fo think the incumbent president will win. That is why Kerry's eight-point lead over Bush is described as "small," while, under very similar circumstances in March 8, 1996, CNN interpreted a nine-point lead to mean that Clinton "would trounce likely GOP nominee Robert Dole (R-Kan.) in a head-to-head race today."

Bush is bad shape. He should be ahead, just as Clinton was. He has all the advantageous of incumbency, and he's running against the exhausted surviver of a contested primary, just as Clinton was. The notion that he was somehow victimized by all the Democratic primary contenders "beating up" on him is hooey. Dole, Buchanan and Forbes also beat up on Bill Clinton over the comparable time period.

The really rotten news for Bush is in the fine print of the Gallup survey, which shows him getting clobbered by Kerry in the so-called "purple states," which were decided by 5% or less. This confirms a state-by-state survey by Zogby International that projects a significant electoral vote lead for Kerry.

And if, as the just completed Miami Herald-St. Petersburg Times survey shows, Kerry wins Florida, there are only three words to describe the impact:

Game over, man.

EARLY ROUNDS TO KERRY

Bush is playing defense two days after dropping a very premature $10 million in TV advertising. When Election Day gets close, the Bush Campaign is going to wish it had that money back. True, they are loaded, but there's never enough. Somebody at the RNC should ask Joe Trippi what he thinks about dumping early money on TV for Dean (Hint: he calls it his biggest mistake).

Moreover, the Reps are probably going to wish they hadn't pulled the trigger so quickly with the 9/11 issue. Early exposure and controversy drains the issue of its emotional punch.

Instead of blaming the ad agency and getting on with their lives, they allowed the victim's outrage to become a two-day story. Their failure to do so proves how central 9/11 is to their strategy. As he did on the issue of gay marriage, Kerry deftly accused Bush of "trying to change the subject [from job losses] by waving the 9/11 shirt.

This campaign will be fought primarily in the free media. At this early stage of the campaign--well before undecided and swing voters have tuned in--the main value of paid advertising is to stimulate favorable news coverage. Ten million bucks lighter, the Bush Campaign achieved only limited success, while John Kerry, saving every penny until it matters most, has matched or beat the president through the last few news cycles.

Tomorrow's chat shows are studded with prospective John Kerry running mates, evidence that Bush has so far failed to frame the debate.

Undisputed Heavyweight Champ

The thing about a champion fighter, you drop your left hand an inch and a half and he'll hit you in the eye.

A lot has been said about how Kerry is "immune" to attacks on his patriotism because of his war record. That's hooey. Bush and the GOP smeared McCain, they smeared Cleland and they'll for damn sure smear Kerrry.

What Kerry's war record gives him is a platform to attack from. His latest same-day rebuttal of Bush's, "I got an honorable discharge" defense is an example of both his agility and his aggressive desire to hurt Bush, as often as he can, any way he can.

A few days ago he was distancing himself from Michael Moore's "deserter" remark. But circumstances alter cases, and Kerry isn't the kind of guy to ignore a swelling around an opponent's eye.

Is that nice? To hit a man in the eye just because it looks like it might be closing up? No, it's not nice. But in a boxer or political campaigner, it's a beautiful thing.

A beautiful thing, I tell you.