I knew that For Love or Money woos (wus?) would go for the little eighth-grader. (And I wrote that previous post before getting to the part where he discusses how she's the most likely to pick him over the money.)

This show is getting sick.

Such interesting situations with such completely unintersting people. Gone pretty flat. At least he's not treating them like his personal harem anymore. Or acting like it's his first chance in a decade to kiss a girl. Maybe he got that out of his system, kissing several women for the first time in a decade.

At least that horrible gold-digger is gone. Of course she lied her ass off on the way out.

It's midnight on the east. Papers posting their morning stories. Just added several to the "Media On Dean" page, including NYT, USA Today, W Post, Joe Conason in Salon (and belatedly, the July 1 Doonesbury).

More coming soon.

Update:

Not a lot of press action west of the Mississipi today. Past midnight in Chicago and LA now, and neither big paper has a story.

The LAT and C Trib both had stories yesterday, perhaps due to their later print times. So maybe they're done with it for now.

The onslaught has slowed. But I'll keep a look out.

I first saw the ad in Radar, thought it was a joke. Not. Coming to Bravo, this month. But I have a feeling I'll hate it.

Looking forward to Boy Meets Boy though.

Hal Hartley film on IFC tomorrow morning. (8 mountain time, I don't know about the rest of you.) It's Simple Men--but come to think of it, that might be the first one I didn't like so much.  But "Trust" and "The Unbelievable Truth" are two of my all-time faves. Rent them. Tonight!

And what has become of Hal? Is he still making films?

Hmmmm. I checked imdb.com and he's still making them. Maybe they're just harder to come by in Denver then the cities I used to live. Is he still any good?

The trouble with winning is always the backlash. Especially when you're still kinda repulsive to at least half the population. Let's face it, even the most accepting straight guy is still generally repulsed when faced with actually picturing it. (Women, not quite so bad. And I meant women picturing it--as for straightguys picturing women together, for some mysterious reason they're all over that.)

Gays have been on a roll the past few weeks, and if MA or NJ courts hand us a marriage licence too, I'm afraid it will be way too much too soon. Self-loathing? No, just aware of what we're up against.

Eric Alterman says "I don’t see how we avoid a nationwide battle over a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

The NY Daily News has a story saying the Shrubs have gotten themselves all wet over the idea, though they assure us "the odds of it ever happening are virtually zero." Hmmmm. We can only hope.

The other possibility is that they'll never pass the amendment, but destroy the campaigns of Howard Dean and anybody else who backs us.

OK, "new" is questionable. It's had two issues, been out about two months now, but I find most people I stumble into it--even homos--have never heard of it, at least out here in The Hinterland. So it might still be new to you. Otherwise, you have no reason to continue reading this post.

Radar is the first magazine I've fallen in love with since discovering Salon (a bit late) back in the spring of '99. A cross between Spy and Vanity Fair (the early, good, spy, before it grew angry, bitter and unfunny). But, oddly, not somewhere between those two, more like Spy in the front, then you flip a page and it's Vanity Fair, with shorter features. (Which is a shame. I'd actually like them much longer.)

I never, ever read any magazine cover to cover, because I couldn't care less about most of the drivel inside them. I subscribe to several, but rarely get around to opening most of them, because even the flip-through feels like a big waste of time. Same old crap, same lame writing, who cares.

(OK, the writing in NYT mag, The Atlantic, Harpers and sometimes Vanity Fair is definitely not bad, but it doesn't always sing either, and the material rarely turns me on. Suprisingly, I was just returned on to Mother Jones. I thought it was all dead except the burial, but the writing is truly stunning.)

But Radar, I am completely taken with. I've read both issues cover to cover (just about--there's always some crap I don't care about, but very little of it). I almost never read that dreck that fills up the front of most magazines. Why do they even bother. It's clearly just filler, it's hardly ever clever--just get on to the features and be done with it. That's the best part in Radar.

So far, the cover features have been:

Monsters Inc.

Meet the Scariest People in America

&

B-List Nation

Why screwy second-rate stars are conquering America's A List.

Either of those could have been great in concept, awful in execution, but they nail each of them, hysterically and relentlessly. (And the first cover is priceless for the bitchy pic of J Lo, presumably letting loose on a cleaning lady or delivery man, over the Monsters headline.

Great stuff. Two for two, so far.

Now if I could just convince them to let me write for them. Consider this my application.

I've got 43 entries now. More than you could ever consume on this topic. Happy reading.

(New entries just posted to the web in the past few minutes by Mother Jones and something called CommonConservative.com, with the catchy headline "If You Like Canada, You’ll Love Howard Dean."  I assume it's bitter crap and I almost hate to link, but I will give them credit for fun spin. And I'm not going to spend time reading it, but comment on it if you like.)

Also, I've been alerted to a site called Dean Defense Forces which sprung up last week. All Dean, all the time.

The total really exceeded projections (though I'm sure they were estimating low all along, so they could beat it).

Some other interesting numbers they have just posted:

• Average contribution: $112
• Average donation online: $74.14
• Total donors (2003 to date): 70,000
• In the second quarter, 45,030 people donated online a total of 51,474 times.
• First time donors in second quarter: 48,000

Levels of Internet Giving:

Less than $50: 18,422
$50 -- 99: 11,579
$100 -- $249: 11,436
$250 -- $499: 2,379
$500 -- $1,000: 368
$1,000 and up: 129

I am responding to requests, and creating a links page, listing stories from around the web on the grassroots phenom that erupted yesterday (June 30th).

I'll keep updating, so if you have any links, please send them to me at davecullen@earthlink.net and I'll try to make this a clearinghouse for a few days.

I'll also post a link to the links page in the lefthand column of this site.

I was at the Dean fundraiser here last week, after attending a Gephardt event the week before. Man, what a difference in those two. Only 30 people at Gephardt, probably 300 at Dean's event, and it was electrifying. The event was a lunch on the day the Supreme Court handed down it's sodomy decision. Dean went off on Scalia's minority opinion, saying that if he really believes what he said in the opinion, he ought to go live in another country. Finally, the progressives are saying the right-wingers are the ones who should leave, not vice versa. I don't know if Dean can overcome the entrenched Beltway pundit mentality, no matter how much $$ he raises. I'm beginning to believe that Beltway Bullshit is at least as big a menace to the democratic process

as big money.

I definitely want to avoid making this place all Dean, all the time, but a lot of people are excited at the moment, and my life is an exercise in excess, so what the hell. I'll keep following up for a bit, until I suddenly grow terribly tired of it.

I was going to update you on the info coming in off the Dean blog, but it's been vewy, vewy quiet this morning. Recovery, no doubt. They posted an early message about sleeping in, with a few tidbits of data, but nothing of note until now. Highlights:

• They have posted the press release they issued this morning, which you might find interesting.
• They added 10K new people to the meetup rolls, a 25% increase in the past four days. (The next one is tomorrow night at 7, by the way.)
• Total for the quarter stands at $7,126,000, though they're opening snail mail and so forth, so the total will be higher.
• You're missing the chat w/ Trippi right now.

The bigger story going on this Dean frenzy the past few days (IMHO) is the use of the web in bigtime politics. To me, that's a bigger story than the Dean campaign. Finally, someone focusing in on that angle. MSNBC.Com has just posted a lengthy piece. It's really fascinating stuff, right to the heart of the matter. Great job, Tom Curry! Way ahead of the lame pack. (I would have thought Slate and Salon would have been all over this. I bet they still will. Scott Rosenberg would be a natural for this, though he's probably got his hands full with other things.)

Head:

How Dean uses power of the Web

Lead:

WASHINGTON, July 1 —  Howard Dean’s Web-powered fund-raising efforts are scoring headlines across the country this week with the former Vermont governor nearly certain to top all other Democratic presidential hopefuls in second-quarter cash, but Dean’s adroit use of the Internet for grass-roots mobilizing may be the bigger story.

Key copy:

The Dean campaign is also paying Meetup.com $2,500 a month to help it organize the 46,000 people who used the Meetup site to set up Dean soirées all over the country. ...

Last week, Dean rival John Kerry hired Meetup.com to help his campaign mobilize its volunteers. Supporters of retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a potential late entry into the Democratic race, are also using the Meetup site to get themselves organized.

...

Veteran Democratic campaign consultant Phil Noble, who is not affiliated with any of the presidential contenders, said, “The Dean campaign uses the Internet to empower people to do things, as opposed to telling them what to do.” ... [Trippi] added, “We’ve known the power of this all along. I can’t believe they gave us a six-month lead” on Web-based organizing.
       “One reason that this doesn’t work for the other campaigns is that they are all command-and-control” campaigns in which the campaign manager sends directives to a state director who in turn relays it to country or precinct organizers.

...

        Four years ago, Republican John McCain and Democrat Bill Bradley used their campaign Web sites to raise funds, leading some reporters to speculate about a revolutionary new Web-based politics. Such talk was premature. The day after McCain scored a win in the New Hampshire primary, 40,000 people flocked to his Web site to donate funds and volunteer, but the McCain campaign didn’t have a grass-roots mechanism for putting them to work.
       Trippi said, “The mistake is to build your Internet organization to get money. We built our Internet organization to build our organizing, so that, for example, we’ll have a huge precinct organization in Washington state for the caucuses.”

So much interesting stuff there. Definitely revealing that Kerry and Clark's people are getting on board with moveon, but you have to wonder what took them so long, and why the others still haven't figured it out. Get a clue, boys.

I also find it so intriguing to watch how powerful new tools are almost always ineffectual at first, because no one can figure out where their power lies. The web has been sitting here, waiting, and they just couldn't figure out what to do with it. McCain and Bradley scratched the surface, but got no further. This guy Trippi--and/or whomover is behind the internet stuff--is really a breakthrough thinker. Regardless of whether Dean wins the nomination, the White House or is long-forgotten 9 months from now, this really is going to change everything. And I think the Curry piece really nails it, uncovers why this has suddenly exploded for Dean.

The funny part is, the piece gives away all the secrets, but watch the others all try to duplicate it and fail. I predict one or two will have some moderate success--a fraction of what Dean does with it--and the others will achieve almost nothing. In 2008 most of them will have it down and by 2012, it will be second-hand nature. But it will puzzle the crap out of most of them for awhile. And they will be so frustrated by it. Ahhhhhh, isn't life endlessly entertaining?

Note: Trippi is doing a live chat on MSNBC.com, starting right about now. The story has a link to listen.

Paige last night--that little 8th-grade girl they cast on For Lover Money:

"You know when you're about to jump off a cliff? You can't look down, you just have to run and do it? That's how I felt."

Hmmmm. No Paige, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with how I feel right before I jump off a cliff. Not a literal one anyway. I've always assumed I would have that experience at most one time.

The one big downside to them telling the pathetic bachelor about the money is that now I think he'll go for the woman (or girl, in this case) who he thinks is most sincere, most in love, and most naïve. So he'll pick that annoying little ditz Paige. Ugh. I guess it would be better than that cheap hussy Kelly getting her hands on the cash. Not a chance in hell she'd pick him over the money. And I think he's smart enough to realize that.

Of course I could have already been proven wrong.

I'm just breakfasting over the show on my Tivo this morning, posting as if it's playing out realtime, because it is for me.

Now unfortunately, there aren't a lot of good choices left. He's down to three, and Erin has yet to set me on fire, but at least she's not hideous like those other two. (That promise ring to herself, is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, for starters.)

I've been noticing quite a few people clicking on the link explaining who the hell I am. Unfortunately, I never really wrote up what I wanted to put there, just threw in a bunch of quickie stuff and a few links.

But since you're actually visiting, I figured it was time to get the freaking living room in order, so now it explains who I actually am. (Though it still doesn't explain the whole Nabokov obsession. I'll get to it. Meanwhile, there's plenty on that here.)

OK, Merriam-Webster has performed its dictionary-update for the decade, adding all the words that grew tiresomely overused several years ago. It's a great guide to ascertain when to absolutely stop using a word.

Hopefully this is not your first indication that it's time, but it should definitely be your last.

If you have any doubts, check out this uberdork lead from the AP story (AP, home to the uberdork assemblyline--that must be where Time gets them):

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) -- A former dot-commer working a McJob was listening to some headbangers while laying out the last of his dead presidents for longnecks and some less than heart-healthy Frankenfood.

Confused? Consult the new edition of the Collegiate Dictionary from the folks at Merriam-Webster. ...

Other words to stop using: dot-commer, heart-healthy, primary care.

I'm a bit sad to see comb-over on the list--didn't realize that one's time was up. Hard to imagine they're just getting to it, though. Or that AP felt the need to define it for us.

(My favorite anecdote from covering the pre-court-martial hearing on an alleged rape case at the Air Force Academy last month, was that not only did the lawyers make each person explain what a body shot was, nearly all the newspapers explained it! Incredible.) I guess Merriam will get to that next decade.

LA Times seems to have the most Dean-centered piece I've seen so far. It's also featured on the front page of their site:

Head:

Dean’s Momentum Stirs Opponents’ Fears

Lead:

Boosted by a surge in fund-raising, Howard Dean has emerged as an unlikely pacesetter in the Democratic presidential contest, outmaneuvering candidates with higher name recognition, loftier resumes and broader political contacts.

Other key copy:

No longer an insurgent, Dean now is seen by most analysts as among the front-runners for the party's nomination. And that is something few would have imagined just a few months ago.

...

Lieberman and Edwards, however, now are having to stave off doubts about their viability — neither has shown much strength in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the nomination battle begins.

Meanwhile, some establishment Democrats are starting to contemplate having their party led in 2004 by someone they consider a sure loser.

"They're worried [Dean] is too far left and he'll be a George McGovern," said a Democratic House leadership aide, referring to the 1972 nominee who lost to President Nixon in a landslide. "I don't think a lot of people see Howard Dean winning the nomination. But just thinking about it makes them nervous."

And the Chicago Tribune, of all places, has a story on fundraising featuring a lot of Dean this morning. (They require registration, though it's free):

Head:

Dean uses Net to haul in donors
Democrat collects $7 million through campaign Web site

Lead:

Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean astounded his rivals Monday with an Internet-driven fundraising surge that has collected $7 million in the last three months, dwarfing many of the party's establishment candidates and guaranteeing him a spot among the top tier of contenders.

Other key graphs:

Each Democratic campaign carefully monitored Dean's fundraising strength, which analysts said raises the credibility of his insurgent candidacy.

"It's not just left-wing college students and former '60s radicals who are excited by Howard Dean," said Stuart Rothenburg, a political analyst in Washington. "If he's raising that kind of money, it shows a breadth of appeal and a depth of commitment that any candidate would like."

The good news for Dean, though, could translate into bad news for other major candidates such as Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Lieberman sent out an appeal Monday that warned: "Urgent 12 More Hours."

AP has updated its story this morning. I'm seeing nothing else.

Not a whole lot new in the AP story, except Bush kicked Dean out of the first half of the lead, and the second graph painted an interesting picture of all Dean's rivals scurrying to emulate his tactics yesterday, sending out "urgent pleas for last-minute cash."

(I also failed to mention last night, that they made an interesting point I'd been discussing with friends, but hadn't seen much about. The internet is an incredibly cheap way to raise money:

Factoring in expenses such as food, promotion and a venue, such [traditional fundraising] events typically carry much higher overhead for campaigns than Internet fund raising; raising money over the Web can cost just pennies for every dollar collected.

Howie Kurtz, media critic (but mostly cheerleader) for the W Post has a mostly negative story, with zero mention of last night. (Probably written earlier, to coincide with the end-of-quarter results, and too lazy to update):

Head:

Dean Now Under A Sharper Scope

Lead:

After a year of upbeat profiles depicting him as a straight-talking, rabble-rousing, Bush-bashing maverick, Howard Dean is starting to get slapped around by the press.

Now that the former long shot has boosted himself into the top tier of Democratic presidential candidates, journalists are diagnosing the good doctor's fumbles and foibles with microscopic precision. And his sometimes testy relations with the Fourth Estate aren't helping.

Other key copy:

I think it's great that the press is finally starting to point out that he's not that much of a liberal. Moderately liberal. This whole McGovern thing is so retarded. But expected.

I realize I'm getting way ahead of ourselves here.

But who cares? It's fun.

You think Wesley Clark could be cajoled into running for veep?

Picture that ticket: Dean and Clark. Would certainly nullify the national security question. I would love to watch the dyspepsia that ticket would give the Rs.

I guess I'll just copy it in, it's so short:

As of 1:00 AM ET, Howard Dean has raised $819,531 online today, bringing our total for the quarter to $7,126,759.

I really like the way they set this game up. Brilliant. Now if only they could have cast it.

More later.

Hey if you're having problems with the display of my site, please let me know! (Comments below: click on "Bite Back.")

I just learned today that it's a big freaking mess on Macs. Thank God for friends who tell you.

Sorry. Not sure if the problem is more widespread than that. I had no idea. Looks fine on my (IE) browser. I just learned the html by trial/error, building off the templates they gave me. When it looked good on my browser, I thought I was through with the error part.

I'll get it fixed as soon as I can. This is sorta beyond me, though.

Can't wait till I'm rich (or just unpoor) and can just hire someone to do the tech part for me. Not that I didn't get a lot of enjoyment out of that, when it wasn't driving me crazy, but I'd much rather devote my energy to the writing.