OK, if you thought Burton was an asshole before, and you thought he was worse over the credits, you've got to read the full text of his farewell speech.

Here's a chunk:

There's no doubt in my mind that any Challenge, physical or mental, when it came to individual Immunity, I would have won hands-down. No doubt in my mind. The tribe realized that, and they did what they had to do. I don't believe it's the right decision at this point in time, but if they didn't do it now, I would have had the cards in my hand to play all the way to the end of the game and make my way to the winner's circle, which I know I could have done.

What planet is he on? He just came in last, dead last on his team--and he doesn't know it yet, but with only a single other vote in his favor--and in his mind he's just a hair's breath away from the winner's circle.

And every immunity challenge, hands down? No one has ever done that. Colby is the only one who came close. And he wasn't even beating Rupert in the physical challenges--he wasn't even picked by the other team as their strongest player. And he would probably lose a lot of physical contests to Osten too.

And mental? With the same strategic brain that came in last on his team even while believing he had it locked up? (Cutting his own throat by throwing the challenge because he was so sure he had all the votes when he had one?)

Another choice nugget:

 I'd say may the best or strongest or smartest person win, but that's impossible at this point.

And humility, you forgot about your profound humility.

And to think I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on not being an asshole. He was just so adorable on that audition tape, I just wanted him to be the sweetheart he seemed there. (You can find that at the same link as his final words.)

Can't wait to see him on The Early Show tomorrow. Will he be one of the few who see the light, or months later after watching the whole thing play out, will he still be singing the same old tune? Those are often tough calls and I'm not certain about it, but I bet he's still in denial.

I'll definitely report in tomorrow.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

Burton Roberts is gone!

And making quite the ass of himself in his credits speech.

"Being a strategic player, and knowing the threat that I posed . . ."

He's blaming it all on how great he is, instead of what an ass he was.

And he's bragging about how important he was: "Challenges are not going to be guaranteed as they were when I was involved . . ."

God is he stuck on himself. Hasn't sunk in yet that he was the very first person thrown out of his team. And he can yap all he wants about it being his strength, but the fact is, he arrived knowing his strength was his biggest asset and a bigger liability, and he did everything in his power to make it a bigger liability. On a team of eight, he successfully rounded up an alliance of two. Same as Skinny Ryan. So just how well does he think he played?

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

Ugh.

Now there's an ugly twist.

But the ugliness is still to come for him. Anyone who declares themself a puppetmaster in this game is in for a big surprise.

What the hell makes him puppetmaster? One vote he gets to decide? Then he's the least popular member of whichever alliance he joins.

And if he joins the alliance of four, they've got a one-vote majority which could disappear if the Morgan's win another challenge and get to steal another voter for a day, and choose Burton. (Which is exactly what they'll do if they're forbidden from taking the same person twice.)

And if he climbs into the four-way alliance, the remaining three could easily join forces with the Morgans after the merge. He would be much better off in a five-way, with only two left of the pair he would have screwed.

But I do believe Jon is dumb enough to make the dumb choice. Will he? I hope not. I'm betting he'll go with the five-way, but not sure it's just wishful thinking.

OK, quiet, they're getting ready to vote.

Just finished the immunity challenge. Nice twist!

The winners--Morgan--get to grab a Drake member to live with them and participate in the next reward challenge. Key wrinkle is, they don't participate in the Immunity Challenge. Can't be voted off, but also can't vote. That will cause all future alliances to think twice. A majority of one may no longer be enough.

Hopefully, apparently, the Prettyboy Drake alliance was short two. (What were they thinking?) Hopefully Mark has not led us astray.

I can't wait for the poetic justice of watching Burton sneer at half the team for 11 days, then throw a challenge because he thinks he's so invincible, only to discover he's the victim.

But I will miss that body.

Twenty minute ago I was screaming (out loud in my head), "No! No! Don't take away the Burton Body so soon!" But I'm over it. This will be far sweeter. Just thought I'd have longer to savor his skin.

And I still might. Can't wait for the outcome. Can't wait to see him on The Early Show.

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

So Burton is smart enough to know the strong will be targets, but too stupid to play like that the first ten days.

And dumb enough to approach the worst possible person, dumb enough to butter him up for ten days prior with insults. (Rupert, if you missed it.)

Huh?

And what is his plan anyway? "As long as no one else knows, we can run the game." How the hell will he do that? With an alliance of two? Because they are the commanding two, and everyone else will hop when they holler? At most they would seem to have four. And they're waiting till day 11 to invite the fourth person into their alliance? Incredible.

I'm thinking it's less stupidity than arrogance. He seems to think he can get away with any behavior he pleases approach anyone in his fiefdom and they'll truckle down before him.

I think we've all see that sort of behavior before. People so pretty, so graceful, so charismatic on the surface, that they've grown accustomed to people fawning all over them. They are oblivious to the anger they're inspiring in their wake. It never occurs to them the can't walk up to whoever they want, pitch their plan and be greated with Hosanas.

His days are numbered.

I will miss the sweet ripple of his muscle fibers.

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

The quintessential Andrew moment of the series:

He and Pretty Ryan get hopelessly lost in the jungle, can't find the cove they're looking for, so Andrew blames the map.

That's it Andrew. No chance of user error. Obviously they misdrew the map.

Piece of work, that one.

But Pretty Ryan is all about owning up to his own failure, how the tribe is going to react to them coming back empty-handed. Love that boy.

(Even if he's in complete denial about the tide coming to sweep away the shelter. I never said he was a rocket scientest, just a little sweetheart.)

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

I have never laughed this hard at Survivor. I keep backing up the Tivo and playing this moment over and over:

Rupert sews himself a new dress, tries it on, breaths a sigh of relief, reaches down and aerates his balls. "Ahhhhh! Much better. I feel lots better."

Never thought I would want to see that, but I can't take my eyes off.

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

The sewing machine--how could he!

No sooner had I thanked Mark Burnett profusely, for finding a way to deck out all the menfolk in clingy boxers for the duration, than he delivers the goods to sew pants.

Damn him Damn him Damn him!

At least Osten's huge ass and Pretty Ryan's sweet little butt will remain visible.

But Burton, that's quite the loss.

Did you see his back all arched at the sea floor, by the way? Mmm ummm!

They better not send him home tonight. I'm not done looking at him.

I'm starting to think one of the prettyboys is heading home tonight. Let it be Shawn. (And he is wearing his shorts way too low, by the way. Especially with that gut. He's not half as hot as he thinks he is.)

---

Meanwhile, Osten's panic attack in the water, that was just so sad. Good job rescuing him and keeping up the fight, though.

Six straight losses. Someone elsewhere led me to believe that ties the record.

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

"How come the prettyboy jockass idiots . . ."

That quote--and the "just like high school--courtesy of Rupert.

Starting to like him again. Though he's got his own problems.

Can't believe the jocks are so stupid to replay high school, act superior and get voted off.

Could be fun to watch their rude awakening.

One reservation, though. I'm mostly still taking a few Drake's word for it, and not necessarily the most reliable Drakes. Burton seems to be a funloving guy who loves to laugh and have a good time, which I really like as long as it's not normally directed at someone, particularly someone less pretty than him. Unfortunately, it looks like it usually is. But it's a little early to see for sure.

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

I'm one minute into the show, and already incredulous.

I could be all wrong here, so correct me if I'm all wet. Knowing very little about tides, but having a little sense on how to read a trendline, I'm watching the Morgups* battling the sea with their puny little sandpiles and logs and I'm wondering if they have lost their minds completely.

If the tide is increasing every day, how long can that last? One good storm and they're history. Can't they face reality and move while they've got a chance?

Meanwhile, first great shot of Osten in profile. That man has an enormous ass! And I mean that in a good way. And I can never thank Mark Burnett enough for finally figuring out a way to get all the men into clingy boxers for the duration. Pretty Ryan, yum. Not much of a body, but he does have a sweet little butt.

Thank you thank you thank you.

* Morgup = Morgan fuckups--does that read at all?

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

Sorry Survivors. I got obsessed with that Dem debate for a couple hours. I was supposed to start Survivor posting well over an hour ago. Starting to watch right now. Will be posting very soon.

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

So. After watching an hour of the debate, I just concluded (in my last post) that Howard Dean may well be the man who can finally rip apart the Republicn facade.

Where does that leave my other man, Wesley Clark?

Most Improved, that's for sure.

Clark came across really mealy-mouthed the first week of the campaign, but he has really found his voice. He was incredibly impressive as an orator tonight, and equally impressive on content when he wasn't dealing with the prickly issues of his past that he has not figured out how to answer. He's come a long damn way in three weeks.

If he continues growing that fast as a campaigner, he'll be shaming John Kennedy by January. But that's a big if.

He already comes across more presidential than Dean--far more--and he may be the guy a lot more Republicans can look up to.

And he has the fire in his belly, too, and he's just getting started and he may still learn to match Dean's ability to cut through the crap and reveal King George as the emperor with no clothes.

But that last one could be the central challenge, and on that score, Clark is still potential, and Howard Dean is already rock solid.

I've told you many times on this blog that I'm supporting both candidates, and I have been careful not to state a preference for one over the other. Largely because I go back and forth.

But tonight I'm prepared to make a confession: I have been leaning toward Clark. I love them both for different reasons, but I think if Clark can pull it together, he has the capacity to devour Bush.

But after watching tonight, I have shifted back toward Dean. Man, that guy can drive his message home. In this world today, it's all about breaking through the din.

Clark is probably the safer choice. I still kind of think he could carry more states. But I can't help hearing that Dean line over and over in my head: "We can't just change presidents here, we're trying to change America."

Howard Dean may just have the right voice to change America.

But Clark might too, so I might change back by morning. I am back and forth between these two every day. But tonight, my heart is with Howard.

I'm just getting to the part where Dean gets to talk more, and he's doing a stupendous job.

Stunning retort on why he supports the troops in Iraq. Managed to broaden it to diss the pro-Iraq Congressional voters really badly in a really great context, then went on to succinctly, articulately explain why the troops need to stay.

I loved his answer as a voter, and was also awed by how deftly he used it to skewer his opponents.

He has really got this down!

I seem to have the same response to Dean every time I see him: First response is pretty bad. He's stiff, he's scowling, he's got the stick wedged deep inside his ass.

But then he starts talking and I start nodding, he talks some more and I'm practically applauding in my living room. He hits his stride and he's really inspiring.

And he's the one person who inspires not only inspires me, but convinces me he's the one man with the voice to rip apart the Republican bullshit facade.

They have gotten away with so big of a con job--along with their hapless accomplices in the press--and more and more I think this is the one man who can hit the right notes to cut through all that fog.

Howard Dean has just got delivered the best mini-speech of the night (so far--I'm only half an hour in), even topping Al Sharpton.

It was in response to an interesting question from Jeff Greenfield about values--that the Dems have not gotten their message across, and voters like their policies but not what they seem to stand for.

I transcribed a good chunk of Dean's response:

We can't just change presidents here, we're trying to change America. In Washington, the culture is, say whatever it takes to get elected. And the minute you're willing to say whatever it takes to get elected you lose, because the American people are not nearly as dumb as the people in Washington think we are. This campaign is about changing America, and until we are willing to stand up say what we think, regardless of the consequences, we never are going to have a chance against George Bush.

Thank you Howard Dean. You're right: that's why you're in first--sort of--and the other dwarves are all trailing behind. (Aside from Wesley Clark, who has been a straight shooter for years.)

Reminds me why I like him so much.

The guy could really use some work on delivery/demeanor, but he sure makes up for it on substance.

That's why I'm a Dean supporter. (As well as a Clark supporter.)

Another dismal response from Clark. He seems to oscillate between brilliant and tragic.

Candy Crowley asked him to square some of his praise of the Bush team at the heart of the tax-cut bill and late praise on Iraq with his indictments of the same today.

He dodged. Said she didn't read far enough in the Times piece to see he was slapping Bush around for doing the post-war stuff poorly. That's irrelevant. She was asking about his praise for going to war.

And then he completely ducked the rest.

So he ducked the entire question. Bad. Bad bad bad. At least by my standards. I know for assholes like George Bush (or Al Gore, frequently) evasion is their stock in trade. But it disgusts me.

Personally, I don't think this stuff is a big issue. The guy has been in a diplomatic role for a long time--TV commentator, and before that general; and if you don't know the job of general is large part diplomat, you're not familar with the reality of the officer corps.

He came out against the war before the war, so if he had some later feelings of standing uniting and praising the president, that doesn't really make me feel like he was for it all along. I have listened to the guy for years on foreign policy, and he tends to look at both sides of things, and see positives and negatives everywhere, and that's a good thing.

I think the charge against him is kind of specious. But a great number of Dems are concerned about it and that's important, and he continues to address it very poorly. That is more troubling. (Though I'm still cutting him slack for just getting started on campaigning. I actually think he's doing great for three weeks experience, but he's got some big lessons to learn fast.)

The economy question, I do wonder a bit more. I hope he's not just against the tax cuts as a campaign strategy. No way to know, really. I guess you just have to trust the guy or not trust the guy. He's one I'm willing to trust. I trust him a lot. For now.

What I'm wondering is, Does he just have trouble thinking well on his feet?

Hmmmm. No, I've seen him on TV thinking well on his feet for years. Sounds more like he is having trouble finding the right candor balance. He was was too candid thinking out loud the first day of the campaign (on Iraq) and is still paying for it. So I imagine he's been prepped to stay on script, but when they cross examine, he's just lost.

Here's to hoping he finds it.

Update:

He did a lot better on the next, tougher, followup. And I think it's because he admitted he was nonpartisan while he was in the military. Personally, I'm fine with that, and I think a lot of people will be. He's best when he says: Look, I stayed out of that morass, but now I'm ready to join in, and I want to do it as a Dem.

For God's sake, he's a huge asset to have. Let's welcome him in. We need people like him in our party. Especially in the leadership.

Man. Al Sharpton is not just articulate, he is blowing everyone else on this stage away.

He is really something.

He used to drive me crazy with his baiting and the bullshit he used to toss around, but he has really come into his own. Every one of these debates, I heard nothing but wisdom out of his mouth, with a lot of humor and great personality.

After that, Mosely-Braun has shown the same, Kucinich often does, Clark is really looking strong--at least in terms of presentation, sometimes content--and Edwards is finally finding his voice. Two bad the first three (Sharpton, MB and Kucinich) were written off before they started.

Dean, I'm afraid, still comes across stiff. Not bad, just not really good. Not his best format.

The others. Blech!

Wes Clark started out great at the debate. Came across bright, articulate, and yes, presidential his first few responses.

Then Lieb attacked him on changing his position on Iraq.

He handled it brilliantly, until Judy pressed him about changing his story after he announced. Then he took a big dump. (Not on her, on himself).

He said he never changed, and he sort of weasled around with doublespeak about talking to a reporter and what he says is clear.

God. Admit you screwed up, buddy. You did. You're only getting in deeper. I hate it when they do that. And I expect more out of him.

And frankly, I can't believe he doesn't have an answer ready for that yet. He had to know it was coming. I guess he had the first answer ready, but not the followup.

Edwards is acting like a human, finally.

Kerry still is not. Opens with the dumbest joke ever, then acts more the dork with, "That's bad." Gives me the shivers. Then he starts right into the script: "When I was serving in Vietnam on a small boat, the one thing I learned was, nobody asked you where you came from. Nobody worried about where you came from. Blah blah blah . . . fought together . . . blah blah blah . . . bled togehter."

The hypocrite from HELL! He's answering a question about background, opening up saying background means nothing, even while shamelessly shoving his "small boat in Vietnam" into the opening sentence. And then he ends by saying his background is the best. What? Contradictory and hypocritical. (And incredibly preachy. He launched into that opening the way Ted Baxter always opened that, "It all started in a 5,000-watt radio station in . . ."

Slate had a great piece several weeks back on how he tries to have every question both ways.

He is quickly becoming my most-reviled candidate. Just as a human being (apparently human), I'm starting to dislike him more than Lieb.

He's quickly becoming the Al Gore of 2004.

The Democratic National Committee's presidental debate in Phoenix starts in 15 minutes (8 eastern). CNN is airing it live this time (so you don't have to search for CSpan on your cable guide).

Too bad for you on the east coast and midwest--over half the population. What were they thinking, putting it on up against Survivor? (And friends, for the smaller-brained among us. Not that I hate Friends, I think it's actually a moderately funny sitcom. But miss Survivor?) The rest of us can watch both. (An hour of the debate here in the hinterlands, all of it in on the left coast. An hour is plenty.)

---

The Dean blog also reports The Daily Show with Jon Stewart will feature a taped segment on Generation Dean's Raise the 'Roots tour tonight. Hopefully they won't make too much fun of it. (They fill you in on when and where to find The Daily Show--I assume you're cableless or hopeless if you don't know already. And you can always follow the link to their blog.)

Whoops. Now it's nine minutes till the debate. Set your Tivos . . .

Margaret Cho's got a blog. I had no idea. I think that cancels out the Bush blog, keeping blog safe for a little while longer.

And she's got one hell of a screed today on that bitch from hell Ann Coulter. (Thanks to TalkLeft for the link, who got if from Atrios.)

A sample:

I dove into Ann's writing, which was a cross between bizarre accusations about liberal politicians and psycho babble hyperbolic lies that make no sense. The conservative men love her, because she is a loyal slave to the status quo. She is Cunta Kinte. As well as betraying her gender, as a notoriously anti-feminist woman hater, she is also racist, homophobic, without compassion, inhumane, arrogant, dishonest, contradictory, not funny, has an arguing technique that compares closely to "I know you are, but what am I?", wears red leather miniskirts and is just plain fucking wrong. I cannot even quote her because everything she says is too awful for me to write. All this and she isn't even hot. If you are going to be wrong, at least be hot. I am guilty of some of the biases that Ann is, but in reverse. My prejudice and hatred of the establishment, the judicial system, anti- abortionists, racism, misogyny, the integration of church and state - can spiral downwards out of control, and maybe my facts could be discounted and I could be called a liar as well. But I don't give a shit, because at least I am hot. I know I may not be traditionally pretty, but playas line up around the block to make some time with me, and they aren't even getting it right then. The line is just for the wristband, yo. The hotness is not about age, looks, body type, race - it is about honesty, knowing who you are and being who you are, without trying to front like you are better than you are. It is about the down deep authenticity of self, then living it, loving it and looking it. . . .

If she had blonder, bigger hair, that would certainly add credibility to her conservative politics and her robotic upper class bigot never-had-any-shit-come-down-on-them-like-a-hard-rain-so-why-should-they-care-about-anyone-but-themselves values. She cannot spit her ignorant angry rhymes successfully with that beige lawyer lipstick. Ann needs to get some Revlon's Cherries in the Snow, the ho's lipstick of choice. She is a ho in sheep's clothing, and it is about time she told the truth, the ho truth, and nothing but the truth.

There is nothing wrong with docking cock for the things you believe in, but don't play the thinking man's bombshell with me. Because she doesn't think and she is not anywhere near being the bomb and I just wish that she could be detonated and explode. But the only way that she could blow up is to face the porn movie 70s dicksucking muzak and own up to her politico prostitution. I am a ho, for the people, and I love that, and I am proud, because I embrace my ho side, and never try to pretend like I know everything about everything because I don't. I don't have to front, because I actually care about people. . . .

Man. Wish I could do that.

She (Cho, not Coulter) was also guest blogger on the Dean blog today.

And if you haven't seen The Notorious C.H.O., it's one of the funniest films you'll see this year. And I'm the One that I Want is even better.

Notorious is pure standup, I'm the One that I Want is closer to a one-woman play. After a rioutous stand-up prologue, it's a single story that will break your heart. Made me cry repeatedly. Made my Ten Best list that year. (About 2-3 years ago.)

Shit. I meant to give you more advance warning about this one.

Charlie Rose had a Frontline (correspondent?) on the other night, previewing tonight's special: "Truth, War and Consequences."

The discussion was excellent, the guest insightful, after a long stint in-country. Frontline is a top-notch operation, and this could be the best insight into the situation so far.

Don't miss it. On PBS tonight! (Check your listings, it varies by location. Charlie said 9, but it's 9:30 where I live. Runs 90 minutes.)

I usually don't get involved in these Moveon.org things, but this is too funny.

Today we're giving you a chance to clear your name. We're asking you and tens of thousands of other MoveOn members to sign an affidavit affirming that you didn't leak the identity of an undercover CIA agent to the press last July.

Here's why:

President Bush told the press on Tuesday that he doesn't "have any idea" whether the senior administration officials who blew a CIA operative's cover will ever be found. But if he just asked his staff to sign a legally binding affidavit confirming that they weren't involved, and referred anyone who wouldn't to the FBI, it's possible he could flush out the perpetrators in a day. To date, the President hasn't even discussed this matter with his staff.

Sign your own affidavit here. They've got it written and they'll take care of sending it. Mine's in the mail right now.

I've been sitting on this Washington Post story for a week, but I'm going to post it anyway, cause I just love it.

Perhaps the single best indicator of Kerry's sagging support shows up in the number of people willing to gather each month to support him.

Here's my favorite passage of the story (immediately after the weak lead):

Trying to emulate Howard Dean's vast success on the Internet, Kerry's campaign in June entered into a partnership with Meetup.com, the Web site Dean has used to assemble and organize thousands of people around the country. But it has not gone well in cyberspace.

Heeheehee. I'll say:

In July, about 3,000 Kerry fans attended 125 Meetup events across the country, while 352 were canceled. In August, about 2,100 fans attended 114 events, while 300 were canceled. And in September, only about 1,500 attended 89 events, while a whopping 481 were canceled because fewer than five people had confirmed their attendance.

Man, what a slide. Half the people fled in two months and more than 4 out of 5 getting cancelled. Meanwhile:

The Dean numbers show the opposite. In July, about 25,000 people attended 315 events, with 213 canceled. In August, 33,000 appeared at 384 events, with 222 canceled. And in September, fully 40,000 attended 664 events; 205 were canceled.

It's funny, the Beltway Boys never seem to notice this stuff. (This is one of the few places I've seen it reported, and it was a mere six paragraphs in a general politics roundup piece on page five.)

They lavish all that attention on the polls, when this is really illuminating what's going on. I would call this a leading indicator, polls a lagging indicator. If volunteers and supporters are deserting the Kerry campaign, he's due for a bigger drop in the polls. If you want to see who will be surging a month or two from now, look at who's got a few hundred thousand volunteers mobilizing.

And imagine yourself as one of those Kerry supporters: each month you see way fewer and fewer people at the meetups--or your previous meetup gets cancelled--while you keep hearing about Dean sessions risking fire code violations. This stuff is cumulative. It will only spiral down further.

But why is it so invisible to the Beltway Boys?

(And why didn't they include Clark numbers, the big dummies. Those are dramatically on the upswing as well.)

I like to Watch. That's the new title of Heather Havrilesky's wonderful regular column on TV over at Salon.

Today's installment laments how dull this season of the Real World is, after a promising start.

I guess I agree. I was totally hooked earlier this season, but find them stacking up on the Tivo. (Along with Queer as Folk.) That's a key signal.

A delicious slice of her trenchant take:

In the beginning, of course, the assembled strangers looked promising indeed. Garrulous Southern boy Ace immediately fell in love with beautiful drinker Mallory, while pouty brat Leah whined softly from the sidelines. Womanizing dork Adam and the witty gay Irishman, Simon, were both too smart not to keep their most scathing judgments to themselves, but Christina seemed short-tempered enough to more than make up for their self-control. And thrillingly, the thick-skulled, barely housebroken C.T. demonstrated his complete confusion about human beings outside his family circle within hours of arriving . . .

Man, she nails Adam and Leah. He just makes my skin crawl, she makes me want to wring her neck. I thought she had actually grown into a real humna when she made up with CT, but of course it only got worse again.

I'm about an episode behind, just getting a glimpse of this wonderous turn:

Ah, well, at least that spoiled freak Leah is finally being treated with the contempt that she deserves.

Here's to hoping she's one of those people who sees the show and finally grasps what a spoiled freak she is. She is trying way too hard to be . . . Mallory, actually. She needs to accept who she is.

Meanwhile, I just adore Mallory and Ace, but they've been pretty deep in the background for weeks. Are they just being too nice for a storyline?

(By the way, if you're following the show, and had not heard, Adam got himself arrested on a drunk charge in Georgia a few months ago, apparently visiting Ace after filming. See smokinggun.com)

---

She also says the ghastly The Practice--she and I agree on how horrible it was--is suddenly wonderful, after all the changes, especially with James Spader. Huh. Well, maybe. Hard to believe, but she was not expecting to believe it either.

Another day, another two polls.

This one from CNN-USA Today-Gallup, checking the national numbers.

Wesley Clark still impressively in first at 21 percent three weeks into his campaign. Howard Dean in second at 16 percent.

That's a five-point gap, down from nine in the same poll in mid September.

Everybody else in single digits.

Not a lot of other info in the AP story. I assume USA Today will post a much more detailed account, along with raw numbers, but I can't find it yet. They just announced the numbers today.

Get your predictions for tonights Survivor in now (preferably here, in this week's comment thread, with the rest of us).

Funniest comments so far:

Buck J: I predict Osten will scream like a woman.

Gail: . . . maybe, they might find a contest that Drake can win. Whining, maybe?

(I corrected Gail's typo, per her following comment correcting it.)

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 4 Comments

Man, if you had any doubts about the integrity of the Bush presidency, just check out his blog.

Everybody is going to do some spinning of their news, but his blog is just one gross distortion after another. His people just have no integrity whatsoever, do they?

Today's swill:

A piece titled "Return of power brightens Iraqis" summarizes a USA Today piece as a gleefull story about the lights coming on in Iraq, saying how great things are now compared to pre-war Iraq.

What a crock! I guess they assume their readers are all lemmings and won't actually follow the link.

The actual story paints a much bleaker picture, with people pissed as hell that we threw the country into darkness for six straight months, and relieved that it's finally back on. The Bush blog segues into the story this way:

Written from Baghdad, a piece in today’s USA Today captures the people’s excitement as the lights come back on and the positive effects their newfound power is having on Iraq’s burgeoning economy.

But conveniently leaves out passages from the piece like this:

The lack of electricity has angered Iraqis and created problems for the U.S.-led coalition.

As for the blog spin that Iraqis are rejoicing about being better off than before, that's just pure bull. The piece actually quotes megawatt figures in question:

Power output reached 4,461 megawatts this week, exceeding the prewar level of 4,107 megawatts in February. A year ago it was 4,867 megawatts. But electricity demand is down now because many factories and businesses are closed.

So they're ahead of the period where both countries were preparing for war, but still not up to levels before it all began. All in all, pretty close, but hardly any great improvement.

And of course, the little downside: the power matters less because the economy has ground to a halt. Factories are not running, businesses shut down . . . That sounds promising.

Those Bushies. Liars, liars, liars. Yes, things apparently are starting to improve a bit--from the fire back up to the frying pan, perhaps--but this rosy picture of the country back on its feet and people dancing in the streets . . . Why don't they just level with people and admit how long it's going to take, and how damn slow and painful it's going to be.

---

On a smaller front, here's the opening of his latest post:

Markets React to Jobless Claims

CBS Marketwatch is reporting that U.S. stock indexes have surged to new yearly highs after a fall in jobless claims released this morning suggest a strengthening economic recovery and better than expected third-quarter growth.

Here's the actual sentence from CBS Marketwatch: "The major U.S. stock indexes surged to new yearly highs after a fall in initial unemployment claims suggested the economic recovery may no longer be jobless and Yahoo's better than expected third-quarter report emboldened buyers."

If you know anything about the stock market, you know that earnings reports from key companies like Yahoo move the markets in big ways. That may well have had the great impact. (And the next sentence added a third reason (though it was also related to the economy).

Reminds me of the movie quote-ads, that will take a statement like, ". . . in a truly dreadful year, this is perhaps the best movie of the summer so far," and run an ad with a banner head saying, "Roger Ebert raves, 'best movie of the summer!'

At least they didn't completely distort this one. It was half true. But only half. I guess that's above average in the World of Immorality where the conservatives reside.

New New Hampshire poll out from American Research Group.

Almost no changes from last month, except Wes Clark, who inched or leapt up from 2 to 5%, depending whether you count percentage gain. It's great percentage gain, but he'll have to move up faster than that if he wants to catch the leaders

Howard Dean maintains his lead of exactly ten points on Kerry (the only place in the world Kerry has some strength). They each slipped slightly. The numbers (with September/August in parenthesis):

• Dean 29 (31/28)
• Kerry 19 (21/21)
• Lieberman 6 (5/4)
• Gephardt 6 (8/10)
• Clark 5 (2/1)
• Edwards 3 (2/2)

 The most interesting finding (directly from the ARG site):

Awareness of Wesley Clark has increased to 90% from 47% in August, but over half of likely Democratic primary voters aware of Clark say they do not know enough about him to form an opinion.

Seems like a direct communique to Clark, though he doesn't appear to be recieving that message.

Major props to the Dean campaign for reporting those results on their blog without a whiff of spin. Matter of fact, nearly their entire post came verbatim off the ARG site, including the good and the (arguably) bad. Those guys can be so damn refreshing sometimes. No wonder they're so far out in front.

And compare their approach to the propoganda from hell on the new Bush blog. (See the next post for the latest distortions.)

Update: AP now has a story up on this here.

I do have this one nagging suspicion about Wesley Clark's unorthodox campaign strategy (from the previous post and the W Post piece).

What if his team is bluffing (faking us out)?

The press always makes these damn things into expectation games, so if Howard Dean remains ten points ahead in New Hampshire for the next three months, they'll kinda right his win off as a non-event.

They really love the story of the Comeback Kid, or the Come From Behind Kid, or especially the From Out of Nowhere Kid.

Those are the stories they really grab hold of and plaster all over the airwaves. That's the kindo f story that lands you on the covers of Time and Newsweek.

I will actually lay money now that if Dean maintains his current big lead in NH right up through the primary, he will not make either cover the next week. The only way he could would be with a headline like "Unstoppable?"--which would then focus on his weaknesses (in the south?) and how he could be beaten in the coming weeks.

But if he's looking strong, looking strong, looking strong for months, and then somebody rushes in and grabs it, that person will make both covers.

That's just how the press plays the game. They need drama, so drama gets you coverage, gets you all the fuel you desperately need.

Perhaps the Clark team is just being coy about trying to win those states, stating their non-contention early, but then maybe they'll quietly devote more resources than they're letting on anyway. And then in the last two weeks they'll go great guns and hope for an upset or even a strong #2 showing and then announce that as a great victory.

I can actually see the latter being their strategy: that's really achievable, and the press will actually run with that. I can actually see the coverage election night, "Howard Dean won the New Hampshire primary easily tonight, but the real winner may be Wesley Clark, who didn't even compete here until the last two weeks and came out of nowhere to finish a strong #2. He now looks forward to strong support on his home turf in the south . . ."

Hmmmm. I would not be surprised at all. And the pipe dream would be if they're surging then, they might actually beat Dean in NH, and then they would have the deliriously powerful Upset, which would cause the press to prematurely pronounce Dean dead.

Hmmmm. Who knows what they're doing. I sure hope they have some strategy other than waiting in the tall grass until Dean whips everybody's butts in the two big contests that matter most.

Of course my dream would be that all the other goofs drop out and these two great candidates (Clark and Dean, if you've never been here before) just debate each other to death on national TV, come up with their strongest TV ads and do all the rest head to head so we can really choose the best man to take on the shrub. But it doesn't work that way, does it.

I may eat that those stupid words, but it sure looks dumb right now.

Really stunning analysis story in today's Washington Post:

For Clark, Late Start Means Unusual Approach

Wesley K. Clark, trying to portray himself as the Democrats' best hope of defeating President Bush, is taking an unorthodox approach to winning his party's presidential nomination.

Clark, the newest presidential candidate, is calculating that it is too late to focus the bulk of his resources in Iowa and in New Hampshire, the two key early testing grounds where his rivals have been camped out for nearly a year, according to a top strategist. Historically, the Democratic nominee usually wins by chalking up a big victory or strong showings in one of both of those states, feeding off the momentum and rolling through the stack of primaries from there.

Instead, Clark has adopted a more national campaign for the nomination, focusing on a variety of other states, including Oklahoma and New Mexico, that will vote in February. Clark's advisers think it would be hard, if not impossible, to win in Iowa or New Hampshire, but they predict he will fare better in the South and other states, such as Florida, that remain wide open.

Huh. Adopting the Lieberman strategy, apparently. God save me from quoting Beltway Boys, but the pundits pretty much laughed off the chances of it working for Lieb a few months ago and I wholeheartedly agreed. (And not just because Lieb is/was doomed anyway.)

I particularly remember one major mainstream political reporter saying that people who come in third or lower in Iowa and New Hampshire remind him of Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense. They're invisible, but they're they only one who doesn't know they're invisible.

So maybe he's hoping for second in one or both of those, but from the rest of the piece, it doesn't look like he's devoting the resources even to accomplish that.

I know I dish the beltway boys all the time for focusing so much on historical patterns, but my point there is that things can change--that when Dean, for instance, is doing a lot of things differently, which is affecting the race in very different ways, they need to get wise to that fast and not stick to the old model. But that doesn't mean the old models aren't still important when someone has not turned them on their heads. And aside from the new D.C. primary that Clark has made no sign of plunging into, I see nothing on the horizon to reverse the impact of NH and IA. You'll notice that despite a lot of novel campaign strategies--nearly all of which have blossomed--the Dean camp is focused razor sharp on those two traditional states.

Have the Clark people not seen this play out before? It doesn't matter how strong you look beforehand, or how high your national poll rankings, those are just polls. The first actual elections occur in IA and NH (and DC if anyone besides Dean and the marginals compete). Start losing those, and everything else tanks very quickly.

Who knows. Maybe the accelarated calendar makes it different this year. Or maybe the Stop Dean backlash will be strong enough that if Dean pulls the first two (three if he takes DC), great throngs will turn to Clark, and a good showing in the south will turn it around.

Maybe, but it seems like wishful thinking. Everybody always thinks that. Once a frontrunner gets a big head of steam, they're pretty damn hard to stop.

Clark can definitely sit out one of the first two, and he can easily afford to lose one, especially if he can do well the next week in the south. But both? I doubt it.

And I don't get the logic that he has to. Plenty of candidates come out of nowhere and rocket up in the polls in NH in the last one to two weeks before the primary. He's got plenty of time. It's way too early to be writing off the big prizes.

(And yes that gives me pause that I have written off Edwards, Kerry, Lieb and the late Bob Graham in those places. But that's based on the facts that 1) Kerry and Lieb were much higher in those polls and steadily dropped--people got a look at them and disliked what they saw 2) I have also seen all of them, and yes, I'm making the prediction that three of them never stand a chance of breaking out of any race. Edwards theoretically could, but he has totally failed to hit the right notes, and the electorate has been incredibly cold to him. And I'm leaving out Gephardt, because he's a special case.)

Bottom line. If Clark keeps up this strategy, he's either going to shock us all with a new route to the White House, or he's going to hand it to Dean early. That's sad, because as much as I love/support Dean, I was really looking forward to two strong candidates battling it out on equal footing and the strongest contender emerging to face Bush.