Great commentary from David Brooks on Charlie Rose right now:

He says there are millions of people who are hardcore for Howard Dean and will continue to support him in primary after primary.

He also makes the obvious (to some!) point that Kerry is going to face a lot of harsh scrutiny. "We, in the media, have been obsessed by Howard Dean, rightly so, for several months in a row. And we've hit from every direction. And it has allowed John Kerry to become the front runner under the radar. Well, the radar is going to be turned on him."

Thank you for at least one sensible pundit.

And Michael Kinsley is agreeing with him.

And a third question: "How deep is the love for Kerry?" Was it merely a product of Dean hitting a snag and people looking elsewhere in a rush? Are they really in love with Kerry?

Man, he sure hit the nail on the head. Dean is definitely in rough water, but he's got a lot of people still behind him, and Kerry has only begun to face the onslaught.

Kerry has got the odds in his favor now, but he's got a lot more tough fights to win and could easily go down in flames. And Dean is on the rise again, no telling what might be in store next.

They would spend the next week ridiculing that stunningly limp victory speech all week.

But boredom doesn't sell, it just loses elections.

And they're in the entertainment business, not the business of helping us pick a good president, or a tough challenger.

At least they didn't stick us with Lieberman. He's giving a slightly more impassioned but exceptionally more unintentionally comical speech right now, claiming a virtual tie for third. Never mind that it's a distant third, or that he doesn't appear even close to tied for it, or that he sat out Iowa to concentrate his efforts here and still came in fifth . . .

Thank God for a little comic relief. I needed a little court jester after watching the appalling newstainment industry at work all day. 

Can Howard Dean survive?

Survive, definitely. Win, I'm not sure, truthfully. I sure hope so.

He's got lots of money and lots of organization in all the contests next week, and Kerry and many of the others are just getting started.

But . . .

But this is a momentum game and Kerry has sure got it.

Unfortunately, I've been watching CNN all night and they have been really timid about how they are going to spin this thing. Not sure what the other nets are saying. It's all up to them. We know they decide the spin, award The Bounce.

It's looking for a longshot for Dean right now, but there are plausible scenarios starting with a few possilbe wins next week. And God knows we've seen a lot of longshots come true in the last 8 days.

I think I'll go to sleep tonight with this very sage assessment from Kos: "If there's something we should all take from this election cycle, it's that the unexpected can and does happen."

Of course he goes on to add, "But for now, Dean would have to pull a miracle to survive." I think he's getting just as carried away right now as most of us were right up until two weeks ago when we said the same about Kerry.

Things are looking better and better for Kerry, but he's a long way from locking this thing up.

And I'm watching his half-hearted victory speech right now and I'm thinking, "This guy?" I would just love to sit down with some of these Kerry voters who pulled their lever based on electability and ask them what the hell they think is going to win the public over to this guy.

I'm still looking for a guy I can look up to and a guy who can actually challenge Bush.

I'm not giving up on Howard Dean.

Off topic a bit from the moment, but I meant to post this all day.

I thought Dean did a great job on the Diane Sawyer interview last Thursday, and his wife Judy did all the better. ABC's star newsmodel Diane Sawyer made her usual ass of herself, however.

Wonderful LA Times analysis, via link from TalkLeft, via Atrios:

Out of the 96 questions that Sawyer asked, 90 were about personality and temperament and only six were even vaguely about issues; virtually all 96 were hostile and negative.

When Dean tried to move the discussion to matters of substance, Sawyer inevitably pushed it back to negative fluff. ("I just want to make sure that I come back on a couple of things --” one thing, you said that --” that you decided that you've got to be yourself. That you've got to return to being what you really aren't. What were you that was not who you really were?")

Does she realize what a joke she is?

And I don't think they would go out on a limb on this one.

Well, it looks like a close second for Howard Dean. The main question now is the spin.

How will the media spin this one?

Can't wait to throw up. (At the pronouncements, not the outcome.)

Update:

And Kerry is apparently going to make is victory speech almost immediately.

Now they're saying Kerry is likely to win by 10 points. And our old friend Bill Schneider is back on to say that that number is critical, because they decided before today that 10 points was the spread. If Kerry beats it, he is awarded The Bounce, if he fails, he is not. (No word from him on whether Dean gets it instead or it just bumps along the pavement randomly.) "The name of this game is bounce!" he exclaims. Yeah, because you turds say it is.

Seven minutes the polls have been closed, and already a solid contender for two of tonight's most coveted newsmodel awards:

• Most Cynical Conclusion of the Evening
• Most Asinine Assessment of the Evening.

Surprisingly, the comment reaping in both nominations came from none of the normal newsmodel contenders, but from CNN chief political analyst Bill Schneider.

And things were going so well through the first 25 seconds of his report. It was a really interesting exit-poll analysis, of the core underlying issue he believes--and I would wholeheartedly agree--ended up deciding this primary election.

Exit pollsters asked voters what their biggest priority was in voting, and then how the votes broke very differently:

Voters saying "Issues more important":

• Dean 33%
• Kerry 26%

Voters saying "Defeating Bush more important":

• Kerry 50%
• Dean 18%

What that says to me is that there is some tragic second-guessing going on. A sizeable plurality would love to have Howard Dean as their president, but they're convinced that they're alone, so they have to vote for someone else that they think will appeal to other people.

Sheesh. Trust your own instincts, for God's sake. Who told you Kerry was going to appeal to all those others? The media?

(Of course there is also the possibility that only Dems love Dean, so he'll get slaughtered by indies and Republicans. But remember that 1) lots of those--particularly indies--are also voting in this open primary, and 2) Kerry, not Dean is the one with the liberal record more likely to turn off the great masses in the middle. Again: Who told all these people that Dean was too liberal, even though he was a very moderate governor? You know the answer to that one.)

To me, that kind of polling says it all, and it's very, very sad.

But CNN's top political analyst Bill Schneider saw it very differently. "It was a choice between venting and winning," he concluded his piece. "And that's the race in New Hampshire."

Venting? Venting! People voting their minds, voting for the person they actually agree with, the person they want to be the next president, and not just trying to second-guess what other people will do, that he writes off as venting!

That is one of the most cynically revolting things I have ever heard.

And it was not just some throwaway line he tossed off in a moment of cheesy newsbanter. Those were the closing lines of a prepared piece, read from a script, presumably of his own writing. It was Schneider's first shot on camera seven minutes after the polls closed, his first big moment of glory with a 30-second spot that you can bet he worked on all afternoon. And that was the final conclusion of the chief political analyst, summing up what he considered to be the deciding factor in the election: People honestly voting for the man they think would make the best president are just venting.

How far removed from world you're covering do you have to get to start seeing the world through a lens that twisted?

The polls just closed and CNN unveiling its exit-polling results.

They're not putting numbers to it yet, but they are validating what has been leaked all afternoon:

• Kerry has a slight lead, but Dean is close enough that he could catch him
• Clark and Edwards way back in a tight race for distant third

Wolf Blitzer says it looks like a long night.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

We may not win this thing, but it's going to be very close.

So the late-breaking exit polls indicate Howard Dean actually has an outside chance of winning this thing tonight.

And if he does, he'll be The Comeback Kid (thought he'll need a new title--I imagine his people have already focus-tested several, and the nets prolly have a slew of them lined up as well). And suddenly the media will lather him with glory again, which will be ridiculous, though no more ridiculous to the drubbing they gave him last week.

(At least they better anoint him again if he wins it. That's standard treatment in a situation like this. Much as I detest their retarded rules, they better stay consistent.)

More likely he will finish a strong second, coming way back from a distant second or third just a week ago, to nearly catching Kerry in a brilliant comeback. At least I think that's how they'll pitch it, if Dean does come in very close.

That will also be kind of ridiculous.

Yes, I am using this opportunity when my own man is likely to profit from the moronic media to call this preposterous "bounce" BS for exactly the load of crap it is.

So what if Howard Dean was down badly three or four days ago and nearly closed the gap? Or if he had been razor close last night and suddenly plummeted to third?

What are we covering here, timing? We're interested less in who won, placed or showed than the timing of their frequent movement? If someone gains or loses a lot of undecideds at the last minute, that's somehow more important?

No. No more or less important. Much more dramatic. And that's all the media really cares about.

This is not a sporting event. But they cover it that way. Fourth quarter, seconds ticking off the clock, hail mary pass to send it into overtime . . .

That's all they care about. The drama.

It's not a sports competition, it's not a movie, it's not freaking entertainment! At least it's not to me. It's not to most of the country, though that's all it really is to them.

Wait, that's not entirely true. I do enjoy it as entertainment. I admit it, I can't help watching it with one eye as a sporting event. So do most of the political junkies in the country, that's why the coverage works.

But I say "with one eye," because I never lose sight of the fact that while I can enjoy watching the ups and downs as a spectator sport, I never lose sight of the fact that the spectating is secondary. A distant second. It's just a fun sideshow created by the main event, it's not what the damn thing is about.

Somewhere along the line, the press got so sucked into the entertainment aspect of it, that's about all they have left. They are going to make the most preposterous pronouncements tonight about who "won" and who "lost" by how they did against expectations--meaning no more than how much they gained or lost in the last day or two.

It will be one of the most asinine spectacles you can imagine. Try not to swallow a word of it. Even if it benefits my guy.

The polls all agreed on a big Kerry victory this morning, but the exit polling shows a different story. From Kos:

The 1 p.m. tracking polls had the LA Times exit polling operation giving Dean the slight lead, while the media consortium gave Kerry the lead. The 4 p.m. results supposedly show similar numbers.  

Wow. I may just pop out of my sullen mood after all.

Of course it's still just polling, but exit-polling is a whole different story from pre-polling. The main challenge with pre-polling is figuring out who's actually going to vote. Not a problem catching people on the way out.

Fasten your seatbelts . . .

Kerry apparently leading, Dean close behind,  Clark and Edwards way behind.

Much more at Kos.

More here later.

I suddenly got sick of New Hampshire all of a sudden this morning. Sick of the press, really. I have to get away from it for a few hours or I'm just going to make a mess of myself.

So I just took a little Survivor break.

CBS has posted new "video profiles" of each Survivor All Stars contestant--actually a little clip of each speaking recently about their expectations, plans for the new game, reaction to their fleeting fame . . . 

I watched the ones for two of my favorites, Colby Donaldson and Shii Ann Huang, and they were both moderately interesting. Of course I started with two of the most down-to-earth members. I was always impressed by their humility. Not sure I can bear to watch some of the pig-heads.

(Colby's humility is relative: but to look like he does, and have a brain and a personality to go with it and still act like he does, that's really saying something. This guy has surely had people dropping to their knees kissing his ass since before he was out of diapers and he hasn't seemed to let it go to his head. To me, that's impressive.)

Unfortunately, CBS had not made a direct link to the lot of them. To get to the videos, you need to head to the contestants summary page, click on the picture of the person you want, and then hit "Video Profile," which is tucked somewhat obscurely into the very bottom of the person's stats bubble at the top right of the page.

My Survivor All Stars page.

Head here all week for Comments on Survivor All Stars Ep 1 -- And all season for Wish Lists, Horror Lists and Predictions.

The final round of polls are out, and they all pretty much agree on the outcome: Kerry beating Dean easily--by 10 to 17 points; Edwards edging out Clark for a fairly distant third--8 to 12 behind Howard Dean.

Excellent roundup at Kos, as always.

Now here's the screwy part. Zogby shows the momentum moving wildly toward Kerry, ARG shows less dramatic movement toward Dean.

But they were way apart yesterday, so this morning they're within three points.

The big bad news for Dean is the Zogby poll. Zogby had him within three points and closing yesterday, but suddenly it's a 13-point gap a day later.

Lots and lots of controversy over that whopping change in the Dean camp, and there's a really interesting discussion of it in this thread on the Dean blog this morning. (Try this: Go there, do a Find command (Ctrl-F in Windows), type in "Zogby" and keep hitting enter to parse through to the discussion of it. Very enlightening.)

Here's the most crucial copy, from Mr. John Zogby himself:

"For Kerry the dam burst after 5PM on Monday. Kerry had a huge day as Undecideds broke his way by a factor of four to one over Dean. Dean recaptured a strong lead among 18-29 year olds, Northerners, singles and Progressives. He narrowed the gap among men, and college educated, however Kerry opened up huge leads among women, union voters, and voters over 65 years of age. These groups gave Kerry the big momentum heading into the primary.

"Kerry had a 19-point lead in Monday's one-day polling. In the final analysis, voters raised doubts about Howard Dean. Through the second half of 2003, New Hampshire voters indicated that they were angry but overwhelmingly felt that President Bush was a shoo-in for re-election . But as in Iowa, the closer Democrats got to actually voting, there was a renewed sense that President Bush could and must be defeated. In our final sample, just about half (49%) told us that Dean was unlikely to defeat the President (that is fifteen points worst than his worst day in Iowa). At the same time, only fifteen percent said it was unlikely that any other Democrat in the race could defeat the President. Howard Dean was the man of the year, but that was 2003. In 2004, electability has become the issue and John Kerry has benefited by developing a sharper message, by his veteran status, and - this is particularly significant- New Hampshire Democrats tell us that he looks like a president.

"Edwards did not receive the same kind of Iowa bounce, as did Kerry. This is not surprising because he is not as well known nor has spent as much time in New Hampshire as the two front-runners. He is likely to end up in third place and that sets the table nicely for him in South Carolina.

"Clark and Lieberman are not out of the running for third place- but Clark has experienced steady downward movement and Lieberman has yet to catch on.

"A final note: I know that my polling in the past two-days has shown a close race. I have no doubt that this was the case. Dean had bottomed out in the latter part of the week, was re-gaining some of his support among key voting groups, and had rehabilitated up to a point his unfavorable ratings. But in the final analysis, New Hampshire voters have decided to nominate a possible president instead of sending an angry message. New Hampshire voters are always volatile and its primaries are always fluid. I have never gotten a New Hampshire primary wrong. I stand by my close numbers of the last few days as much as I stand by these final numbers."

 Damn. Kinda disheartening, though the voters can often surprise us--especially in the primaries, especially this season. And second place? Who knows what the media will do with that. More on that topic a little later.

Damn.

Oscar nominations released this morning, and Scarlett Johansson was snubbed. After double nominations from those ridiculous Golden Globes, I had my hopes up.

I have not yet gotten to Girl with a Pearl Earring, but I have been in love with that girl since Manny & Lo in 1996 and mesmerized again by Lost in Translation, in spite of the underlying weakness of the film.

I didn't expect her to win anything this year, but a nominee--or especially two--would have really put her on the map. She sure deserves to be there. Go rent Manny & Lo tonight. It's really something.

I've got a lot less standing to complain about Evan Rachel Wood's exclusion, because I never saw Thirteen. I just watched her blossom into an amazing actress on that Once and Again show, so I chose to believe the glowing reviews. Holly Hunter--who I also love--got a supporting nomination, nothing for Evan Rachel.

And Bill Murray finally got his (first?) nomination for Lost in Translation. He should have won years ago for the wildly under-rated Rushmore, but maybe they'll make up for it this time. He deserves a win, he was wonderful, though I bet he'll lose to Johnny Depp, equally overdue, and prolly even more deserving for Pirates of the Caribbean. I get the giggles just thinking about that performance. 

Wish I could say the same about Sofia Coppola's horribly incomplete script, or equally frustrating direction, both nominated. For her daring choice to amputate every scene 30 seconds early? The film was all promise, no delivery. Worst case of emotional blue ball I can ever remember from a movie.

Of course it's also nominated for best film. Right.

Extended AP story and complete list of nominations here.

Lord of the Rings got the most nominations, eleven, followed closely by “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.” It was already the favorite for Best Picture, so that prolly clinches it. They really want to give a big award to the three films, and I do agree it deserves something. Visually it was truly spectacular, and it did have a whole lot of emotional energy, and all sorts of great things inside it, but ultimately, I thought it failed to live up to its potential. All sizzle, not so much substance. A really shallow take on a wonderfully complex world.

I wouldn't give it that big an honor, but then I haven't seen a whole lot of great films this year. Haven't seen as many as I like to period, but I've been disappointed by most of what I did catch.

At least there was nothing for that horrible Columbine travesty Elephant.

Today's MSNBC Question of the Day:

"Beating Pres. Bush: Is Kerry the Democrats' best shot?"

I just voted. It's 54/46 yes now. Two minutes later--after someone posting a link on the Dean blog--it's 52/48. (Update: Ten minutes after that, it's down to 47/53.) I'm sure the Kerry people are all over it too. Or have been, or will be. (Maybe they ran it up to the positive figures to begin with.) That shows you how silly the results are.

But what about the effect of the question?

For months now, the press has been pounding home the idea of Howard Dean as "unelectable," and in Iowa, exit polling indicated the perception was the biggest reason he lost. The latest Zogby numbers this morning are showing a disturbing repeat may be happening in New Hampshire.

But MSNBC--one of the most heavily-trafficked sites on the web--is really over the top on this one. Isn't that question pretty much push polling?

If you're not familiar with the concept, it's a despicable tactic often used by campaigns, with a fake poll covering for actual underhanded campaigning. For example, you call thousands of people pretending to be a pollster and include questions like, "How important do you consider the attendance record for elected officials?" Then, "Does it bother you that candidate x only showed up for 15% of the votes in the House/Senate last year?"

The person is far more open to persuasion, because they think they're dealing with an objective third party just gathering polling information. They don't realize they're being spun, or getting fed a one-side picture of the candidates.

So in a race where the most important question is coming down to electability, doesn't this MSNBC question suggests that it's likely that Kerry is? Particularly in a seven-person field?

Why don't they just say, "Do you agree that John Kerry looks presidential and comes with a war hero record sure to undo George Bush?"

The thing is, the second question would be less advantageous to John Kerry. It would be way too obvious, people would roll their eyes and say, "God, when did MSNBC land on the Kerry payroll?"

This way it's merely suggestive. Just one of a million media messages the past six months that Kerry had the "presidential" quality to topple Bush. This from a press corps notorious for calling every campaign wildly incorrectly. Even when they're a big force in the outcome they can't call much of anything right.

And yet they make these ridiculous conclusions--like Kerry's electability--and force-feed them to the public until we believe them.

Despicable.

No, I didn't hop on a plane over the weekend, but I did check in with Chris & Dee Jay, too great new friends from Ft. Worth that I met last week in Iowa. Very bright guys, and we shared the same candid assessments about the mess of the ground organization we experienced in Iowa.

Good news. They confirm what I had been told by a friend inside the campaign: It has a whole different story in New Hampshire. Very organized, very well run. Complete contrast to what we saw a week ago. Thank God. Things looking good for the GOTV drive. That will be crucial.

(And on a related note, I just got an email from the campaign saying they distributed 100,000 copies of the Diane Sawyer interview this weekend. Nice move! Wish I had thought of that. That could really help. And people might actually find it interesting enough to pop in. It's really hard to conceive of just how saturated the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire get, how utterly sick of all the campaign crap they get, until you get there. My very first house of the day in Des Moines last Monday, I faced an old man screaming at me for all the incessant calling and knocking and pamphleting. He did not want any more of my God damn literature, and I can only imagine how much of that stuff we distribute lands right on the top of the trash can. But a videotape, that might be interesting. And Diane Sawyer is one of the entertainment industry's top celebrity performers. Of course it takes a little more effort to pop the cassette in the VCR, so a lot of people will merely intend to watch it, but the potential payoff for the viewer is much higher--and at least different--so I imagine a lot of those tapes will get seen. And when they do, the effect will be much more powerful than a pamphlet.)

Very different personality to the locals, too, so hopefully the Zogby numbers showing undecideds breaking for Dean this time will bear out. They're liking what they're seeing in the field, hoping for a surprise tonight.

A quick anecdote. I really enjoyed this one, and it will give you a little sense of the place, too. (I wasn't taking notes on the call, or planning to commit it to print at the time, so I probably flubbed a detail or two. All the main points should be solid, and nearly all of the details):

They're out canvassing with lists of potential Dean supporters sorted by address, but the address numbering scheme can be really screwy (they're in a small town--the state is essentially a collection of small towns--near Dover). Apparently in the past, addresses were just assigned sequentially 2, 4, 6 . . . rather than 100s for one block, 200s for the next, etc. Then when the land was subdivided, if a house was built between 2 and 4, they just gave it any available number, say, 16. They may or may not have sorted out the actual history, but the fact on the ground is that addresses are not even in order. So canvassing gets really complicated. (If you've ever done it, you know how time-intensive it is to begin with. Just all the walking makes it an hourlong job just to reach a few dozen houses, and most will not be home.)

The followed the standard approach of driving to the precinct, and then walking from house to house. But things were so confusing and the weather so cold--five degrees and torrential winds--that they went back to the car to sort things out, and pulled into a driveway to turn around.

Just as they were pulling out, the guy living there came home. Rather than approach him immediately, Chris and Dee Jay decided to give him a chance to get settled, and they would come back as they left the area a bit later, when they returned to the car. When they got back, Chris hopped into the car and got things ready to go there, while Dee Jay knocked on the door. The guy answered with a rifle.

Dee Jay opened with his terrified Texan drawl: "Ha. Ah'm sure hoping you won't shoot me, but we're just here from Texas asking you to support Howard Dean . . ." He handed the guy some literature and got out as fast as he could. The door closed and he zipped back toward the car, but then the door swung back open, and the ran out waving the rifle and shouting: "Hey!"

Dee Jay practically soiled himself, until the guy explained his excitement. "How does this Dean guy feel about guns?"

"Oh, you're going to like this one," Dee Jay said. "He's the only candidate against gun control."

"Really. OK, son, you just got yourself two votes."

---

Thanks guys, for giving up three weeks of paychecks to slog through the tundra. We owe you. And I'm envious, too.

What a glorious headline from AP this morning:

White House retreats from weapons claims
Jan. 26, 2004  |  WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House retreated Monday from its once-confident claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Democrats swiftly sought to turn the about-face into an election-year issue against President Bush.

The administration's switch came after retired chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said he had concluded, after nine months of searching, that Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of forbidden weapons. Asked about Kay's remarks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to repeat oft-stated assertions that prohibited weapons eventually would be found.

Last Wednesday, I reported that Salon stock was up nearly 1,000% in a week--to 31 cents--after a new cash infusion and a joint venture with Rolling Stone.

It peaked out there, at least in the short, short term. Ran out of momentum the next day and dropped back a bit. By Friday it had dropped back to 22. But it has since stabilized a bit. Closed yesterday at 25.

(Unfortunately, all those numbers are cents, not dollars.) 

So excited, I can't even sleep.

This is the day.

Sure hope it works out well.

Dean seems to have the momentum (along with an Edwards surge further down the standings). So he should deliver a "surprise."

God, I hope so. Hope it's enough.