Salon's cover story for tomorrow focuses on how pathetic Ralph's campaign is this year.

He's drawing miniscule crowds, and he's got no TV ads.

He' polling at 1% nationally, and he'll be lucky to get that. Now he's officially off the ballots in the key states of OH and PA.

The real problem areas are MN and WI, two states right on the brink, where he runs strongest. He's been averaging around 4% in the WI polls. I don't think that's going to happen, though. As him limps in to election day this time, those people are going to realize two things:

1) that they could be dooming us to another four years of Shrub,

and

2) there's no real Nader movement left to support.

It's that latter one I had not really thought about till I read this piece.

I know the inclination to vote third party, I've done it many times in my life, at the senate and occasionally pres level. (I voted at least once for Perot, and yes, for Nader in 2000.) The idea is that you're too disgusted with both candidates and/or parties, and you want to throw your weight behind some other burgeoning movement.

In 2000, the Greens felt like a real movement, and Ralph Nader felt like the man to help finally land them on the map.

And they had a specific and attainable goal--5% of the popular vote, I believe, the amount required to get public financing and automatic ballot status in future elections.

But this year they have none of that. Nader is not even on the Green ticket, and his campaign is hopeless, pathetic, and largely invisible. There is no goal, nothing to achieve. Who the hell is going to get behind that? 

Salon had a great cover story today called

On the offense

Kerry is amping it up again, the way he should have been responding to this failed presidency for months. Thank God.

Among the highlights of the piece:

Kerry's critique of Bush's war policies has grown sharper at each campaign stop over the last few days. Monday morning in New Hampshire, Kerry said that Bush "talks tough and brags about making America safer," but that his administration has exhibited an "unbelievable blindness, stubbornness and arrogance" and has "failed to do the basics" in Iraq.

Shew:

And he's figuring out how to make the awful news from Iraq work for him, to undermine the credibility of the keystone kops driving us into the ground:

In an early morning foreign policy address aimed at controlling the day's news cycle, Kerry used the latest bad news from Iraq to underscore his larger point: Bush has consistently made "wrong decisions" that have made America less safe. And, Kerry said, Bush has intentionally tried to hide the truth about his decisions -- and the risks created by them -- - until after next Tuesday's election.

"He has stood in front of the American people day after day, telling us how much progress we are making in Iraq and how much safer we are under his leadership, without ever mentioning the loss of these deadly explosives," Kerry said in a speech inside a gymnasium in Green Bay. In exactly the sort of critique Republicans frequently aim at him, Kerry blasted the administration for offering differing explanations for why the weapons got away. But he saved his sharpest words for Bush, who's been silent on the munitions.

"What did the president have to say about the missing explosives? Not a word. Complete silence. Despite devastating evidence that his administration's failure here has put our troops and our citizens in greater danger, George Bush has not offered a single word of explanation," Kerry said. "Mr. President, what else are you being silent about? What else are you keeping from the American people? How much more will the American people have to pay?"

Kerry gained another point tonight, now ahead by two, and on a steady upward trek.

He has gained seven points in seven days in that poll, since his nadir one week ago. It has been slow and steady and ceaseless.

Check out the beautiful chart here.

Of course he's still behind in some polls, but the average is right around even, and Kerry is tracking upward in almost all of them.

If Kerry were to maintain this pace, he'd be ahead a stunning 9 points on election day. That won't happen, but he doesn't need it to. He just has to hold where he is, and when the undecideds break as they always do, he creams Bush.

Trying not to get too overconfident here.

No, not Republicans, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's--rebranded 85 years ago as the Windsors--and the rest of Queen Victoria's grandchildren. (Great family tree here--though it only includes the monarchies still intact. Way too many of them.)

I just finished the final installment of "The Lost Prince," on Masterpiece Theatre.

As art, it was less moving than the first half, but I learned quite a bit, especially from the mini-documentary that followed.

I never quite put it together that three of the major countries, on two of the sides, where led by Vickie's grandchildren, more or less. More in the case of Russia and Prussia, less in the case of Britian, where the king had already lost most of his power.

His family was the only one to survive politically, and in the case of the Romonov's at all, of course.

It's just all so appalling. Yes, of course I knew how ridiculous the monarchies were, but every time I'm reminded . . .

And to see this single family bungling so much of it on both sides. Incredible.

How those Windsors manage to hang on, I just don't know. They do know how to preserve themselves, though. I knew George V changed the family name to avoid the heat over a german family "ruling" the country during a horrific war against the two Germanies. I did not know that he granted his cousin the tsar exile in Britian but then revoked it, leaving the Romonovs trapped under house arrest until they were all shot to death. Sacrificed them, saved his own butt.

Of course he couldn't know what what happen--though surely it didn't look good for them either. But if I'm to believe this account at all--and I do, since it just corroborates the rest of what I've read--what a thoroughly ridiculous group of people.

I wonder how long the Brits will hang onto them.

I'm not expecting it tomorrow, but I wonder.

I keep seeing David Boies out promoting his book, which rekindles the whole discussion of how five Supreme Court justices stole the election for Bush last time.

I have this view of people, that most of us really want to be good people, and particularly those nine, I have little doubt about their intent.

And I imagine the five who stole the last election and handed it to their party convinced themselves at the time that it was the best thing for the country.

But it's been well documented how several of them had to reverse their own core beliefs/precedents to do it. You could make a case for either side in the court battle, I'll accept that. What I can't accept is that Renquist, Scalia and company could accept the side they accepted given their own history of decisions.

Consciously, I'm sure they told themselves some story to make it stick. For a little while.

But I find it hard to believe that eventually, they won't see what they did. They got caught up in the emotion of it, they couldn't bear to see their guy lose--and the other guy appoint a bunch of liberals to undo their precious agenda--so they found a way.

I have a feeling some of the five have already figured it out.

And I kept help these little fantasies from running through my mind. None of them occur before the election--too much even for a fantasy--but I have this one of Sandra Day O'Connor holding a press conference after Bush is ousted, most likely just after Kerry is sworn in. In it, she explains to the country that she thought she was doing the right thing at the time, but came to realize that she had seen the issues the way she wanted to, and did not act impartially. She apologies to the country for her mistake and resigns. She further explains that once she came to her conclusion, the worst thing she could have done was admit it--that would have made the president totally illegitimate and provoked a true constitutional crisis. She had to wait until his term was over, and now that was satisfied, and she was ready to come clean.

It could happen.

My bigger fantasy is that Renquist's brush with cancer will raise enough mortality rumblings that he'll feel the need to free his soul of ghastly crime.

I doubt he'll ever be the one to do it, though. I think he really will die still in denial, and will await his punishment in the afterlife.

Does anyone else have these fantasies?

I am grateful to David Boies and his publisher for timing the publication, now, though. I hope I'm not the only one getting these feelings stirred up.

I can't tell you the anger that boiled inside when when one party stole the white house for the first time in my lifetime. At the time, it was tempered only by my anger at Gore for such wimpiness about taking on the fight like the Bush team.

As the election gets closer, and the memories return, I find my anger over the 2000 theft boiling back to the surface, a phenomenon that has caught me completely by surprise. But it's a powerful force, and I hope the Dems have figured out how harness it. Especially in Florida. I read that Gore was down there trying to reinvigorate the feelings. Hopefully they've got more in there arsenal than that.

Final report on the most important economic numbers for the election:

Consumer Confidence down for the second month in a row. (Reacting to skyrocketing oil prices, among other things.)

A public worried about the economy is a very bad thing for the incumbent.

Just not Shrub's week, is it?

Imagine being the first Americans dynasty since the Adams Family to lose re-election to the presidency twice. Gotta be painful. I actually feel a little sorry for him. (Thanks to Joe for the correction.)

But it should keep us from ever facing another Bush again. No way the Rs are going to nominate Jeb after both his dad and brother failed them.

(No wonder Jeb is working so hard for him. That attempt to whack all those African Americans off the rolls again was just disgraceful. It alone allowed them to steal FL last time, so why not try it again. He got caught in time this time, but why would we expect a fair election after that?)

No sooner did I cop to a down day for Kerry in the polls yesterday, than the Washington Post poll came out a few hours later--released every day at 5 p.m. EST--showing a two-point jump for Kerry among likely voters and an astounding 5-point leap among registered voters.

He actually took the lead in both.

Most of the others followed, today. Kerry gained in TIPP and Zogby. He lost two in Rasmussen, but that was evening out a statistical blip that had him surge 6 points the day before (these are three-day tracking polls).

The battleground polls are looking even better, as reported below.

Great roundup of the poll trending here.

And great analysis of the shifting polls here, from the lips of Scott Rasmussen himself yesterday, via DailyKos:

October 25, 2004--Kerry in the lead?...Our daily Tracking Poll shows Kerry up by 2 points... the first time he's held the lead since August 23. At the same time Zogby shows Bush up by 3 points. Many have asked how this difference can be explained.

My first assumption is that the difference is temporary. A few weeks ago, the situation was reversed... Zogby had Kerry by 3 and we had Bush by 4. Within a few days the difference disappeared. It will probably do so again because our polls and the Zogby poll have been similar all year.

Further, it appears that the difference lies in our Saturday samples. Zogby reported a huge day for Bush on Saturday (leading by 7). We found a small lead for Kerry on that day. That suggests that our combined numbers for Friday and Sunday were very similar. The Saturday sample will drop out of both Tracking Polls when we report our data for Wednesday.

So nice to be in a swing state. I get to see all the political ads for the first time since the national-ad strategy ended ages ago.

Moveon just ran one a second ago employing the Pat Robertson quote about Bush saying we'd have no casualties in Iraq. It was a nice commercial crystalizing all Bushes domestic and foreign failures succinctly, but it also used the Robertson name against him, appropriately, in the state where Focus On The Family is headquartered.

Nice work. Glad to see it's out there.

Breaking news from the New York Times, at the very top of its website:

Allawi Faults U.S.-Led Forces on Execution of Iraqi Soldiers

BAGHDAD, Iraq, , Oct. 26 - Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said today that "major neglect" by some of the American-led forces in Iraq led to a weekend ambush by infiltrators that left 49 Iraqi National Guard trainees dead.

Mr. Allawi, speaking to the national assembly, did not go into detail. The attack happened on Saturday night in the face of growing indications that insurgents are being given inside information about the movements of Iraqi security forces. Iraqi officials have opened an investigation into the role played by infiltrators in the weekend ambush.

Udate:

MSNBC is also leading with the story.

On top of the disastrous (for Bush) disclosure about the 350 tons of mutitions lost, this could be a horrible final week for Bush. Of course the White House is doing everything it can to muddy the truth--their standard procedure--but it will come out. And they're going to keep the story alive by doing so.

Best site in the business if you're watching the electoral map. (And you should be.)

Just posted.

Bush still 14 ahead--same as yesterday--but slipping. Slate's analysis:

Analysis Oct. 26, noon ET: Trouble for the president. He's trending down in the Reuters/Zogby tracking polls in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The map appears to be firming up: Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa to Bush; Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania to Kerry. The back-breaker is Florida, where Bush has won only two of the last seven polls. One (Gallup) is clearly out of whack. If the other (Zogby tracking) drops again tonight without countervailing evidence, Bush will be out 27 electoral votes, needing Ohio and Wisconsin just to tie.

Just ten more days till the first of the two big Alexander movies opens wide (Friday, Nov. 5, some theatres starting Nov 2.)

Can't wait. Been all giddy for a year and a half now, and the wait is almost over.

Unfortunately, I prefer the casting on one, the director on the other.

Although I used to like Oliver Stone. A lot. But he can get really screwy, sometimes. But he does have talent.

If you're not familiar, his project is "Alexander," and he cast Colin Farrell, Jared Leto, Anthony Hopkins, Rosario Dawson, Angelina Jolie. Colin was always stunning to look at, and I was equally mesmerized by his attitude, but in Home at the End of the World this summer--my favorite film this year--he finally showed he was also an amazing actor.

And I've always been a big fan of Jared Leto. But Angelina Jolie as his mother? That sounded weird enough, then I read that she's exactly one year older (29 to 28). God. Even for Hollywood . . .

Colin seemed like the perfect choice, maybe. Not sure he is big enough or old enough or a big enough presence to pull it off, much as I like his presence. (Like Brad Pitt as Achilles. Never went to see it, primarily because as much as I love Brad in some roles--Twelve Monkeys, A River Runs Through It--just couldn't see the quiet little guy as Achilles.)

Maybe Colin could step up to it, maybe not. And then I saw the first shots of him in that big blond curly wig. Ugh. Not the right look--for anyone. (If you haven't seen it, there's a decent shot at the top of this interesting Salon interview with a uni prof about Alexander and the sudden interest--though not the hair quite at its most flaymboyant.

But what looked horrifying in stills seems to work in the clips we see in the commercials, so I'm hopeful again. Please don't let us down, Oliver. Ninety percent of these epics do, but I'm ever hopeful.

Meanwhile, the Baz Luhrmann project "Alexander the Great," has been drastically postponed. Originally the two were neck and neck to get to theatres first, until Baz said he refused to "be drawn into a race." As of this summer, he was still working on the script.

Baz directed my all-time favorite movie, Moulin Rouge!, so I was intrigued, though it didn't necessarily sound like material he would be good with.

And he cast Leanardo DiCaprio as Alexander. Can you imagine a worse choice? Did Baz see Gangs of New York? Leanardo was great in What's Eating Gilbert Grape, and can excel at a lot of things, playing a strong man is not one of them. What's worse is, he seems to sense this, and tries to overcome it by gritting. He was comical in Titanic, but just sad to watch in Gangs. I felt sorry for him.

Hennyway, it's been postponed so much, maybe Leo will become unavailable and Baz will have to find someone up to the role.

Meanwhile, the Discovery Channel is timing their Alexander documentary to feed off the hype--Nov 7, at 8/7c. That could turn out to be the best one of all.

Oh, did I mention that Alex is one of my two or three most interesting historical characters of all time?

And I'm a big history buff. I used to take history classes just for fun in college. I ended up with so many history credits I had nearly enough to get another degree in history.

Fascinating guy. Even before I figured out I was a homo.

I just got an email from TruthAndHope.org asking for money to help continue running their ad What's so Funny?

Take a look. Kind of shocking. Made me cry by the end.

It's the stark, painful truth, though I really don't know if ads like this work. They might just turn people off. Low blows? I certainly don't think so. I think the policy is morally indefensible, the lies are abominable, and pointing out the reality is patriotic.

But . . .

I actually think this stuff needed to come from John Kerry's mouth. I know some conventional wisdom say the reverse--that he needs to stay above the fray and let surrogates, outsiders and ads do his dirty work. (Like Karl Rove is doing with the wolf ads. Though they prey on our fears suggestively--unsubtly, but suggestively--rather than the brutal reality of dead soldiers in our face.) 

But I think this can look a bit weanyish. Particularly with something this stark, the candidate has to speak the words. John Kerry has been afraid to do that, and I think that has hurt him.

His new ads are much better late than never, though.