November 2004 Archives

Top Ten Merriam-Webster word searches of 2004:

1. blog
2. incumbent
3. electoral
4. insurgent
5. hurricane
6. cicada
7. peloton
8. partisan
9. sovereignty
10. defenestration

As the story points out, eight of the words are related to news events.

I'm not surprised by most of the words on the list. But hurricane? People haven't figured those out yet?

I guess since John Ashcroft has achieved the objective of securing the homeland, there isn't much left to do at DHS.

$1.3334/Euro.

"There was a concern that the U.S. will let the dollar slide because of the trade deficit, so I asked President Bush for his opinion. His answer was the U.S. is committed to a strong dollar.''

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
November 22, 2004

Juan Cole has an interesting post examining differences that liberals and conservatives see in the use of military force. But here he makes a good point on the body count mentality of some in the Pentagon:

The US military seems strangely unaware of the realities of insurgencies. It seems to think there are a limited number of "bad guys," who can all be killed or captured. The possibility that virtually all able-bodied men in Fallujah supported the insurgency, and that many are weekend warriors, does not seem to occur to them. In fact, as Mao noted, guerrillas swim in a sea of supportive civilians. The US military slides suggest that now that the bad guys have been taken care of, the civilians can be won over. That this outcome is highly unlikely does not seem to occur to them.

As long as we're simply killing bad guys, we're never going to turn this thing around in Iraq; more will just keep popping up. The only thing that's going to stop this is if we get the Iraqi civilian population to turn against the insurgency. And, unfortunately, we haven't seen a great deal of progress on that front during the past six months.

It's the last day of November. Unfortunately, at least 133 U.S. troops serving in Iraq will never get to flip their calendars from November to December, because they're now dead. When it's all said and done, November might be the the most deadly month for US forces in Iraq.

"I think it [Iraq] has been a remarkable success story to date, when you look at what has been accomplished overall. I think the President deserves great credit for it."

Vice President Dick Cheney
October 25, 2004

I see that the folks at the White House see a need to publicize the Thanksgiving telephone calls our commander-in-chief made to members of the Armed Forces

Okay, but why stop there? Wouldn't it be interesting if the White House published a list of all President Bush's phone calls? Everyday?

Now that would be informative.

Cheating women can try to blame unfaithfulness on their genes:

Professor Tim Spector, director of the Twin Research Unit at St Thomas Hospital in London, said that about 40% of the variation in faithfulness was due to genes. The figure means that if a woman is unfaithful, her identical twin sister would be twice as likely as average to be unfaithful as well.

A non-identical twin sister of an unfaithful woman would be 50% more likely to have an affair outside marriage.

Attempts to link infidelity directly to a specific gene or set of genes failed, although the researchers said that they did manage to locate some of the traits to three of the 23 pairs of human chromosomes.

The theory?

The study, published in the journal Twin Research, suggests that a genetic predisposition toward female infidelity may have evolved because it was important in allowing women married to "low status" men to surreptitiously become pregnant to "high status" males.

I don't know about that, but I'm not qualified to opine on female motivations. I have yet to be sold on much of this genetics-controls-behavior research. It typically offers more questions than answers. But perhaps we'll get a more complete picture over time.

I'm still pondering the plight of my Christmas spirit. It's said that as a person ages, time seems to pass more quickly. Perhaps that's a simple explanation of things; it gets harder to keep pace with the "faster" moving seasons. That might be part of it.

At any rate, I'm moving slower than many into Christmas. No decorations up yet. Nor was I among the 45% of Americans who participated in the Thanksgiving weekend shopping frenzy. Of course I'm not much of a shopper to begin with. So the "crowded stores" excuse works well for me.

Earlier this week--before Thanksgiving--I headed out jogging with my radio walkman in hand. I flip over to the local "light rock" station and make a disturbing discovery: Christmas music. Now, I don't have any thing against Christmas music per se, but this was bad news on two fronts:

(1) Most Christmas music just doesn't seem to go well with running, and

(2) It was before Thanksgiving

I'm a strong believer that Thanksgiving should serve as a line of demarcation for the Christmas season--no Christmas lights until after you put away the leftover pumpkin pie. Otherwise commercial exploiters retailers will just keep pushing the Christmas envelope earlier and earlier until we are hearing "Frosty the Snowman" in July.

So I had a pretty good reason to be turned off by the Christmas music on Tuesday. But then today I was driving about, flipped on said station, and they are in the midst of a Christmas music marathon. And despite the fact that I wasn't exercising and we are now in the permitted Christmas window, I still couldn't take it.

Kind of funny because earlier in the day I broke out a "Messiah" tape because it just felt like that time of year. But when it came to the radio station's seasonal playlist, it was no-go.

What does this mean? I'm not sure. It may be that either:

(1) I'm becoming a disillusioned grumpy old Scrooge who will have a hard time getting into the Christmas spirit this year, or

(2) A person reaches a certain point in life where he cannot take weeks and weeks of "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer"

I hope it's the latter, because I don't want some scary spirits to come visit me when I sleep.

This evening there were clear skies over Resonance world headquarters and I got to see a beautiful full moon rising. Sorry, no pictures. One of these days I should get to the Smokies and watch a moon rise over the mountains.

Moon fun fact: Did you know that the moon is moving farther away from the Earth? I didn't either, until today. Perhaps 3.8 centimeters per year. Better build that moon station soon.

I've posted a few pictures from last weekend's trip to Wilmington, NC in the photogallery.

Living in a commercial storage unit doesn't sound like a very good way to go, but some folks don't have much of a choice.

Housing would a good thing to include in a Thanksgiving thankfulness list.

I'm going to condense 4 hours worth of TV news time today into 20 seconds:

It's the day before Thanksgiving. Lots of people in planes, trains, and automobiles. Look, rain in the East. That might slow things down a bit. Expect some delays. Be patient. And don't joke about having any bombs in your baggage.

I'm kind of glad I did the "Thanksgiving" family travel thing last week. Today doesn't look like a fun driving day.

International edition:

I explained to the [Mexican] President that we share a mutual concern to make sure our border is secure. One way to make sure the border is secure is to have reasonable immigration policies.

A secure border . . . right. Bush's immigration proposals have as much to do with creating a secure border as his timber industry deregulation has to do with creating "healthy forests," or his polluter deregulation has to do with creating "clear skies." Just another public relations oxymoron.

This immigration policy is about one thing: cheap labor for U.S. business. Don't let the White House speech writers trick you into believing otherwise.

It looks like my posts are about to disappear, so I guess it's time to get back to blogging.

I got back to K-Town late Sunday night. Had a pretty good time in Wilmington, NC. The town seems like a decent place to live if you're into smaller towns. A small port, nearby beaches, a college, lots of historic houses. One thing I noticed about it, however, was that no matter where you drive, it seems like you spend most of your time waiting at stop lights. And I'm not a fan of stop lights. And to add to the beauty of it they've got a bunch of cameras to nap the unsuspecting red light runner.

I went to the ocean twice. The weather cooperated in giving me a couple of 70 degree days. Not bad for mid-November. Conditions must typically not be too bad there, however. Because I saw a couple weddings on the beach. Either that or there were a couple of adventurous wedding planners.

I do have a few pictures to post later.

If you locate Wilmington on the map, you'll note that it's isolated in the middle of no where, I fact not lost on you when driving there and back. I can almost understand why that's big 'Neck Car country--because there's nothing else there.

So what did I miss the past few days? Judging from the TV news, it's not the routing chaos in Iraq, nor is it a bunch of hunters getting killed: it's BasketBrawl! Interestingly, assaults like the ones Friday night go on all the time in some parts of the country, almost without notice. But include a few millionaires and locate them in a public arena that white people frequent and news anchors that know very little about sports are all over the story.

Memo to talking heads: we don't need your talk radio brethren or sports psychologists to figure out what happened. Players possessing little self control got angry and tried to take things out on some fans. Oh, and if the brawl is as repulsive as you say, it's interesting that you keep showing it over and over.

I'm over in Wilmington, N.C., and it's pretty nice for mid-November. Today we toured the World War II battleship North Carolina, which is docked along the Cape Fear River. We were very fortunate to have a 80+ year old veteran crewman show us around. The guy probably knows as much about the ship as anyone alive, and you can't beat good first-hand oral history. It was great.

I'll likely hit the beach either tomorrow or Saturday. I haven't seen the ocean in several years. It always makes me feel really small. Hey, there's something to look forward to.

I'm away from Resonance world headquarters for the rest of the week, visiting relatives on the North Carolina coast. Interestingly, although I've lived in East Tennessee for over 20 years, I've never been further into the Tar Heel State than Asheville. So I'll be seeing some new country.

I may or may not drop by here while I'm gone.

Until later.

More evidence that people are stupid:

The Internet auction house eBay Inc. canceled bids for half of a 10-year-old grilled cheese sandwich that its owner said bore the image of the Virgin Mary.

Diana Duyser, of Hollywood, put the sandwich up for sale last week, drawing bids as high as $22,000 before eBay pulled the item Sunday night. The page was viewed almost 100,000 times before being taken down.

Great way to spend $22,000, right? Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps there's a market for partially-eaten, decades-old cheese sandwichs that I'm just not aware of.

Reason No. 7 that going to war is a bad thing: the people fighting become emotionally damaged and predisposed to unnecessary violence.

Sooner or later we're going to have tens of thousands of combat-hardened veterans returning to the United States. If we're lucky, the trauma they've experienced in Iraq will only translate into a few additional murders and instances of spousal abuse. If we're unlucky, we might have another Oklahoma City.

Oh yeah, I don't think a video tape of a U.S. soldier shooting an injured man in a mosque will go over so well on the Arab streets, either.

Knoxville Cycling Forums.

According to this site, "Arnold & Jen" need a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I have yet to be convinced that we need to remove the native-born requirement for U.S. presidents, but a case can be made for doing so. That argument, however, should not include we need to change the Constitution so X can run for president.

First of all, the Constitution-amending process is so slow that it's unlikely that any particular foreigner would still be a "hot" candidate by the time the amendment was finally ratified.

But more importantly, the U.S. Constitution is far too significant to be altered through a personality-driven campaign. The founders deliberately made the amendment process difficult so that it wouldn't be subjected to the fluctuating whims of the masses. And that's exactly what's at work here with an "Amend the Constitution for Arnold" campaign.

FLASH NEWS: The world braces for change as U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman resigns. Oh yeah, that Powell guy is out as well.

There are rumors that National security adviser Condoleezza Rice may succeed Powell. Hasn't Rice already done enough damage to this country? Our diplomatic situation is strained as it is. We don't need to throw more incompetence into that mix.

I've posted a few overlook pictures taken along Foothills Parkway (Great Smoky Mountains).

All but one of the photos were taken in mid-September, when I bicycled from the base to the top.

Trust me, it's much easier going back down.

Wonderful. We have four more years of this to look forward to. From the Bush/Blair press conference:

Q You know, you talk about democracy being so necessary. There are those who would say there is sometimes a harsh peace of a dictator. What if the Palestinian state comes up with somebody who is not a democrat, but is willing to have peace with the Israelis? And let me transfer that to the Iraqis, as well. What if the Iraqis come up with somebody who's not friendly to the United States, is not a democrat, but it's peaceful, is this something you can live with?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, first of all, if there's an election, the Iraqis will have come up with somebody who is duly-elected. In other words, democracy will have spoken. And that person is going to have to listen to the people, not to the whims of a dictator, not to their own desires -- personal desires. The great thing about democracy is you actually go out and ask the people for a vote, as you might have noticed recently. And the people get to decide, and they get to decide the course of their future. And so it's a contradiction in terms to say a dictator gets elected. The person who gets elected is chosen by the people. And so I don't -- I'm not --

Q You can be elected and be a tyrant.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can be elected and then be a strong man, and then you get voted out, so long as you end up honoring democracy. But if you're true to democracy, you'll listen to the people, not to your own desires. If you're true to democracy, you'll do what the people want you to do. That's the difference between democracy and a tyrant.

And the Palestinians may decide to elect a real strong personality. But we'll hold their feet to the fire to make sure that democracy prevails, that there are free elections. And if they don't -- the people of the Palestinian Territory don't like the way this person is responding to their needs, they will vote him or her out.

And the reason why I'm so strong on democracy is democracies don't go to war with each other. And the reason why is the people of most societies don't like war, and they understand what war means. And one of these days the people of the Palestinian -- the Palestinians will realize that there is a bright future because freedom is taking hold -- a future that enables their children to get educated; a future in which they can start their businesses; a future in which they're certain that the money that's going into the treasury of their government is being spent fairly, in a transparent way; a future in which corruption is not the norm; a future in which rule of law prevails. And that leads to a peaceful society.

It's surprising that despite President Bush's thorough survey of history--a topic he undoubtedly reviews daily--he fails to recognize that many rulers have pursued their "personal desires" following an election.

But more significantly, Bush completely dodges the important point here: what if an election helps to erect another anti-American government in the Middle East? Bush invariable frames the Iraqi election as an issue of freedom and democracy.

What a bunch of bunk.

The United States' primary objective in Iraq is to establish a government friendly to American strategic, military, and commercial interests. We couldn't care less who the Iraqi people want in charge. If America was on a true mission to spread democracy, why didn't we start in Saudi Arabia, where we already had troops stationed? Because we could deal with the Saudi leaders, just as we currently deal with our unelected allies in Pakistan and elsewhwere

Four more years. . . .

The Tennessean has the 2004 Tennessee Report Card on public schools.

A few interesting factoids:

--Nearly half of the state's 911,735 public school students live at or below the federal poverty line. The percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced-price meals has gone up in recent years and hit 49.9% last year.

--About 55% of all core academic classes are currently being taught by a ''highly qualified'' teacher, a detail added to the Report Cards this year. That's a licensed teacher with a bachelor's degree and expertise in the subject he or she teaches. All core classes � which include English, science, math, foreign language, social studies and the arts � must be taught by highly qualified teachers by the end of the 2005-06 year.

--State and local dollars made up nearly 89% of school budgets last year. Of that amount, the state paid slightly more than 45%. The remaining amount came from the federal government.

It doesn't reflect too well on your state when half the public school students live below the poverty line.

TV stations are not airing Saving Private Ryan because of the FCC:

Many ABC affiliates around the country have announced that they won't take part in the network's Veterans Day airing of Saving Private Ryan, saying the acclaimed film's violence and language could draw sanctions from the Federal Communications Commission. . . . In a statement on WSB-TV's Web site, the Atlanta station's vice president and general manager, Greg Stone, cited a March ruling in which the FCC said an expletive uttered by rock star Bono during NBC's live airing of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards was both indecent and profane.

The agency made it clear then that virtually any use of the F-word � which is used repeatedly in Saving Private Ryan� was inappropriate for over-the-air radio and television.

The Bono case "reversed years of prior policy that the context of language matters," Stone said. He added that broadcasters could not get any clarification from the FCC on whether the movie violates the standard.

It would be bad enough if the FCC simply banned the broadcast of profane language. But , if possible, the FCC has done something even worse by making the rules so murky that broadcasters don't even know what they are allowed to air. Government agencies are supposed to promulgate clear policies so people know if their conduct is lawful. The broadcast decency standards are now a confusing mess. Nice going, FCC.

Oh, then there's this:

[Ray] Cole [president of Citadel Communications] cited recent FCC actions and last week's re-election of President Bush as reasons for replacing Saving Private Ryan on Thursday with a music program and the TV movie Return to Mayberry.

"We're just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new Congress," Cole said.

Great. Thanks to message sent by supposed "values" voters, TV broadcasters are now afraid of airing programs which illustrate the deadly consequences of the war policies these same "values" voters support.

Yes, isn't it great that our courageous leader doesn't have any inhibitions in launching a war on the other side of the globe? Just don't show us what such a war actually does. How about a rebroadcast of Return to Mayberry to help us celebrate the American victory in Fallujah?

The "war on terror" strikes again:

Warren County officials, facing scrutiny of their decision to lock down the administration building on election night, say they were responding to a terrorist threat that ranked a "10" on a scale of 1 to 10.

The information, which Commissioner Pat South said was previously deemed confidential, is coming out a week after the public was barred from viewing the Warren County vote count. The Ohio Secretary of State's office doesn't know of any other county in the state to impose such a restriction.

County officials initially said they feared that having reporters and photographers present could interfere with the ballot counting. They subsequently cited homeland security concerns.
. . .
County officials locked down the administration building on Justice Drive after the polls there had closed. Officials say having both a polling place and the board of elections in one location increased security concerns.

"It wasn't international terrorism that we were in fear of; it was more domestic terrorism," South said Tuesday. "I much prefer sitting here today telling you why we did implement security rather than why we didn't."

County board of elections officials had compiled a list of people who were approved for after-hours access, but that list didn't include reporters.

It also didn't include an approved ballot-count watcher.

That's weird, isn't it? Who would think Warren County, Ohio, would be a high-risk terrorist target?

Apparently not the FBI:

Officials at the FBI, which oversees anti-terrorism activities in southern Ohio, said they received no information about a terror threat in Warren County.

"The FBI did not notify anyone in Warren County of any specific terrorist threat to Warren County before Election Day," FBI spokesman Michael Brooks said.

A spokeswoman for Ohio's top homeland security official, Public Safety Director Ken Morckel, knew of no heightened terror warning for either Warren County or any other Greater Cincinnati community on election night.

So now government officials need only cite bogus terrorism threats in order to dodge transparency and public accountability? Lame.

Props to The Cincinnati Enquirer and Countdown with Keith Olbermann for reporting this story. Most of the media has gone to sleep regarding Election Day irregularities.

So which news network was first with the surprise news that Yasser Arafat had died?

MSNBC was out with its "FLASH NEWS" at least a minute or two before the others. I noticed CNN coming on next with its "BREAKING NEWS," however, Fox News Channel came on nearly at the same time with a "FOX NEWS ALERT."

I've noticed that MSNBC is frequently first in reporting something new. Either they're quick on the draw or they have a less cumbersome confirmation process than the other two.

. . . speaks child disicpline and "God's people' hater."

President Bush reportedly will nominate a torture enabler for Attorney General.

Gonzales flashback:

"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a �high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

But hey, he's Hispanic! Only a racist would attempt to block this nominee from being confirmed.

Did you know that the Mars rovers continue to rove about the red planet? And that they have lasted more than twice the length of their life expectancy? Odder yet, the Opportunity rover has experienced power boosts thanks to two or three mysterious "cleaning events" to its solar panels.

I'm flipping through the TV channels and see that--surprise!--Larry King Live has a panel offering another hour of speculation on the Scott Peterson case.

Today's headline, in case you were asleep all day, is that a juror was dismissed. Among the captions rotating at the bottom of the screen, where space is at a premium, the program notes that the alternate juror is a "tattooed mother of four."

So what does this mean? Does the fact that this juror has tatoos make her more predisposed to side with the prosecution, or with the defense? America needs to know.

Will this trial ever end?

Outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft:

I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts.

Hey, only one week after the election and the Bush administration has already secured us from crime and terror! I wonder what the TSA and all these security companies are going to do now, not to mention the U.S. troops fighting a now-moot war in Iraq.

Kind of interesting that the letter is dated November 2. Here I thought that Bush had been burning the midnight oil the past few days making agonizing decisions about who he was going to retain in the Cabinet. Guess not.

It's also interesting that Ashcroft's letter has been reported as being a five-page handwritten letter. There must either be more than one letter or Ashcorft writes really, really big.

I don't have any embedded reporters or intelligence on the ground in Iraq, but I'm guessing that despite the media's breathless coverage of Operation Phantom Fury Dawn al-Fajr the attack on Fallujah, we're not going to see a culminating Alamo-type stand where U.S forces crush the evildoers. At least not if the insurgents have any sense. Most of them will simply melt into the general population and continue their bombings and shootings somewhere else.

And all the while we'll continue to hear about the "brilliance" of the Iraqi invasion, and how we're about to turn the corner on the violence there. Even as the death toll continues to climb.

What a mess.

Even after a year and a half of this turmoil, there are still plenty of Iraqis who apparently still prefer their home-grown violence over our imported version:

In a key political development, the Iraqi Islamic Party withdrew from the 100-person interim National Council in protest of the offensive.

"Military action against any city is the wrong answer and will not solve anything," said Mohsen Abdul Hamid, head of the group.

As long as people continue to resent American forces in Iraq, there's going to be violence. And there doesn't appear to be an end to that in sight.

Heh.

I added a few pictures taken at Cades Cove this summer to the photo gallery.

How long until it's summertime again?

Since Tuesday, certain corners of the blogosphere have been abuzz with tales of Election Day irregularities. I haven't commented on them because even though I believe some funny stuff went on, I don't believe the problem was widespread enough to determine the outcome of the election.

But that doesn't mean instances of Election Day shenanigans shouldn't be called out. To the contrary, election funny business should be scrutinized--if, for no other reason--to ensure that the next election will be better. Despite the so-called election reforms in 2002, our system is still a mess. And it's a poor reflection on the world's sole superpower.

Apparently, The Bloggerman will be covering Election Day irregularities on his show this week. Why did officials in Warren County, Ohio feel the need to lock out outside observers during the vote count for purposes of "Homeland Security"? Perhaps we'll find out.

As I've noted here before, if you're not watching "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," you should be.

Josh Marshall has a good post on why the Democrats should not nominate Hillary Clinton for president in 2008. He cites two reasons: first, because it's not good for America to continue having presidential and/or party power concentrated in two families (Clintons and Bushes); and second because Hillary would have a difficult time winning.

I don't have anything against Senator Clinton's ideology or her as a person. But I think it would a disaster waiting to happen if the Democrats nominate her. If John Kerry can't be competitive across the south and west, there's no way Hillary's going to sell in red state America. Unfortunately, image and personality seem be as important factors for a successful presidential candidate these days as message and policy. And Hillary has been demonized for way too long for her to overcome the negative currency attached to her name.

Michael Erard has a piece on how political consultants--Frank Luntz and George Lakoff in particular--work to frame political debates in specific terms in order to give their side an advantage.

This is an area where Republicans have had great success. They're able to boil complex issues into a few simple phrases which even Joe Blow of the AM radio think tank can digest and regurgitate at will.

You could even see this contrast during the presidential debates. John Kerry came loaded with facts and statistics to support his arguments. On the other hand, Bush relied heavily on his simple talking points. Now to me, it appeared as if Kerry had a much better command of the issues. But apparently to many voters, Bush succeeded simply by repeating enough magic buzz words.

Bill Gertz, Moonie "agent of prophecy"?

I did a comparison with the vote total Bush received Tuesday and that of past presidents.

Bush got 16 million more votes than LBJ (1964), 36 million more votes than FDR (1932), and 57 million more votes than Lincoln (1860). There's no popular vote total for the 1789 election, but if had been Bush undoubtedly would have received even more votes than George Washington.

Wow, George W. Bush is the most popular president ever!

Digby offers an insightful look into how the election was won.

I think the Republicans established a notable precedent of gracious bipartisanship following Clinton's 1996 re-election.

Of course it will be a bit difficult for Democrats to launch impeachment proceedings when they don't control either house of Congress.

More from the strange world of TV news. I was watching CNN and Wolf Blitzer was talking with a reporter regarding how Elizabeth Edwards has been diagnosed with breast cancer. They got to talking about Ms. Edwards in general:

BLITZER: He's been a longtime spokesman for the Edwards campaign, in supported of Elizabeth "is as strong a person as I've ever known. Together our family will beat this." She's a very impressive woman, an attorney in her own right. She's done some pretty remarkable things over the years.

HENRY: That's right. She was very impressive to a lot of Democrats and Republicans when you talk to them, just as Laura Bush has been -- has impressed Democrats, as well as Republicans, with her aplomb on the campaign trail and as first lady. And what they say is that Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer, is very accomplished, but also has children, older children, as well as younger children that we saw on the campaign trial, and that she has been very accomplished both as a mother, and as a professional in her own right, and that's why, obviously, a lot of sadness right now at the Kerry/Edwards campaign, that she was diagnosed with breast cancer right in the middle of the difficulty campaign itself.

I'm not sure why Henry uses the "what they say is that Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer." She is a lawyer. She has an older daughter and two young children. Henry doesn't need to attribute these known facts to some campaign statement.

But more importantly, what does this story have to do with Laura Bush? Absolutely nothing. So why is she brought up? I suspect because this is just one of many reporters who has been programmed not make any sort of value statement about a person on one side of the campaign without saying something similar about the other side. Whenever they offer a subjective comment about one candidate--positive or negative--they reflexively must "balance" it with an in kind remark about their opponent.

Thus, if Dick Cheney says he never implied a link between Iraq and 9/11, duty requires that a reporter can't point this whopper out unless he devotes equal time to point out that Edwards misstated the amount of money allocated in a three-year-old spending bill. So it always works out that both candidates are equally untruthful.

Lame.

Anyway, best wishes to Elizabeth Edwards. She seems like a wonderful person.

Word is that it will be Senator Harry Reid.

I agree with the wide-spread belief that the Democrats should select someone from a "safe" blue state who will have the latitude to be an outspoken advocate for Democratic policies. There's no question that Daschle was handicapped because he had to appeal to his conservative constituency.

I don't know much about Reid's leadership style or Nevada politics, but according to this criterion it sure seems like Senator Durbin or Dodd would be a better choice.

Apparently, we are responsible for the media's crummy early exit poll results:

News organizations promised Wednesday to look into why their Election Day exit polls showed an initial surge for John Kerry, but also blamed bloggers for spreading news that gave a misleading view of the presidential race.
. . .
[P]eople who read these numbers - among them, thousands of ordinary Americans with an intense interest in the election - put too much faith into them and leaped to conclusions, said Bill Schneider, CNN's polling expert.

"I think people believed them, and it's particularly the case with Internet bloggers," said Kathy Frankovic, CBS News' polling director. "That's unfortunate because it sets up expectations that may or may not be met. I think it's a good exercise because it reminded people that early exit polls can be unreliable."

Of course. We're not smart enough to figure out what poll numbers mean without those brilliant network political analysts to filter those complex numbers for our digestion.

Speaking of which, was it just me, or did most of the TV talking heads on election night offer only the most obvious conclusions as returns rolled in. If you wanted to figure out how a close state was going, you were better off looking up the returns yourself and comparing those numbers to how the state had voted in 2000. Lot of good those experts are when they only make calls on the obvious states.

There's no small irony in the fact that despite the media's nearly exclusive focus on the "war on terror" over the past three years, and despite the corresponding effort to cast President Bush as the steel-spined commander in chief who protects us from the WMD-welding Iraqi terrorists, some of Senator Kerry's strongest support came in the areas most directly impacted by 9/11.

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, D.C.--the areas which suffered the most from terrorism, and which continue to be most vulnerable to another attack, all went for Kerry. Obviously, other factors play a role in this. But it is interesting that the "day that changed everything" didn't have much of an impact on the political preferences of those nearest Ground Zero.

Clearly things did not go yesterday the way I anticipated or hoped they would. In my defense, I'll note that I'm not the only person scratching my head this morning. For example, John Zogby ended up picking Kerry to pick up the same 311 electoral votes as I did. And he gets paid a lot more to do this kind of thing than I do. And even the early exit polls were apparently off.

So what happened? A few things stick out in comparing the exit polling to the 2000 returns:

(1) Women: The gender gap shrunk as Bush picked 4% among females.

(2) Latinos: Among Hispanics, a growing segment rumored to be trending to the Democrats, Bush actually picked up 7%.

(3) Young voters: The "new" voter group, which favored Kerry, simply didn't turn out as had been advertised. Only 11% of those sampled were first-time voters.

(4) Catholics: Went for Bush over the Catholic candidate.

(5) Issues: "Moral values" was deemed the most important issue by the largest percentage of voters, out pacing "terrorism" and the "economy." Despite all the hoopla concerning 9/11, the God, guns, and gays threesome still appears to drive many people at the polls.

What to make of this? Clearly, the Democratic party is in disarray. Not only did it fail to win against an incumbent with sub-50% approval ratings, but it sustained a huge blow in the Senate. Simply put, it wasn't even competitive in a huge part of the country. That can't continue. Even the things that the Democrats appeared to have working in their favor this year--the 527s and the Internet/based get-out-the-vote activism--simply didn't deliver at crunch time. In some ways it was reminiscent of the vanishing Deaniac movement in the primaries.

The Republicans will undoubtedly declare this to be a huge mandate. But a mandate for what? The GOP succeeded in making this election a contest of image: the strong commander with resolve versus the weak flip-floppy liberal. Bush didn't campaign on a detailed second term agenda. I'm sure the think tanks and special interests have stuff waiting in the pipeline, but it's not what Bush ran on. It remains to be seen whether the Republicans will come out with their agenda immediately, or wait for another terrorist attack to ram stuff through.

Another four years of incompetence isn't a pleasant thought. I just hope the long-term damage to foreign relations, the supreme court, and environment won't be too severe.

C-SPAN has a national map.

Florida.
Ohio.

For what it's worth:

	AZ	CO	LA	PA	OH	FL	MI	NM	MN	WI	IA	NH
Kerry	45	48	42	60	52	51	51	50	58	52	49	57
Bush	55	51	57	40	48	48	47	48	40	43	49	41

If true, this looks promising for Kerry. But these don't include early voting. And consider this disclaimer.

UPDATE: I have no idea if these numbers are accurate, but Drudge posting "Kerry in striking distance -- with small lead -- in Florida and Ohio" suggests they are. I suspect he would be posting hard numbers if they had Bush ahead. Moreover, Rush is also downplaying the exit polls.

UPDATE: There continues to be an Internet dispute on the validity of these numbers. Obviously Kerry isn't going to win PA and MN by double digits. But the chatter consensus seems to be that Kerry had a small lead in the first exit poll survey. At any rate, there's still a lot of voting yet to come.

UPDATE: A different set of numbers over at Slate. As expected, this shows things real tight in Ohio and Florida (Kerry +1). Bush leading in NC by only 2%?

Josh Marshall:

To start with, for instance, don't rely on right-wing agit-prop sites for your news about alleged instances of 'voter fraud'. Wait till you hear real information from real news outlets.

The GOP is going to be pulling this stuff through the course of the day trying either to use it to ramp up their suppression activities or lay the groundwork for challenges to what some are starting to fear won't be good results. (For more on how that works, see Josh Green's always invaluable expose of the Rove election shenanigans playbook.

Yep. Earlier I saw Fox News Channel reporting on a supposed controversy regarding some ballot boxes in Philadelphia. Their source for the story? GOP campaign workers. At the time, FNC hadn't yet been received verification from any official government source, nor had it even obtained a response from any Democratic officials. But they ran with the report anyway.

That's Fox--dutifully conveying the GOP message.

Electoral College:
Kerry 311
Bush 227

Popular Vote: Kerry 50%, Bush 48%, Independents 2%

US Senate: Democrats 49, Independents 1, Republicans 50

Tennessee Vote: Bush 51%, Kerry 47%, Independents 2%

Comments: In a race as close as this is purported to be, just a small swing have a dramatic impact on the electoral college. It all comes down to who votes. I predict Kerry will win today because: (1) Bush has been polling at 48-49% (incumbent 50% rule); (2) polls understated the Democratic vote in 2000; (3) polls are likely under sampling the 18-29 age group, which should go for Kerry; (4) Democrats are fired up and have a much more organized get out the vote effort than they did in prior elections; (5) a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction our country is headed; (6) turnout is expected to be at record levels, which should benefit Kerry; (7) Kerry polls better among independents; (8) hope.

I had anticipated that Florida would be the toughest state to call for Kerry. But Ohio and New Mexico ended up being the closest calls.

If the day really goes well for Kerry, I wouldn't be surprised to see Nevada, Arkansas, and West Virginia also turn blue.

We'll soon know.

Are you (and America as a whole) better off than you were four years ago?

If so, you can vote for four more years of the same. If not, you can vote for a fresh start.

Freedom may be on the march, but it never cracked the guarded confines of Bush/Cheney campaign rallies.

Why is a candidate who allegedly possesses so much fortitude and steely resolve unable to confront a few hostile T-shirts?

Early voter turnout has been high this year, and there is evidence in some areas that Kerry is doing better in it than Gore did four years ago. The Republican talking point has been that this merely reflects a Democratic effort to "front load" voting with a coordinated get out the vote campaign. Maybe so. But citing Tennessee, Garance Franke-Ruta notes that early voting is heavy even in areas where there hasn't been an orchestrated get out the vote effort:

Even more intriguing than what's going on in Florida and Iowa, though, is what's happening in the state of Tennessee, and it's here that I think we may start getting some answers about what's going on elsewhere. In 2000, 2.1 million people voted in this state; Bush won, 51 to 47 percent. With Bush leading by double-digit margins, Tennessee is hardly a swing state this year. It has not been the focus of anyone's GOTV operation or advertising campaigns. But this year, 1.13 million people voted early in Tennessee during the two-week period when they could do that. That means that a third of registered voters in the state have already voted; more than half the 2000 turnout number has already been to the polls. It seems highly improbable that all these people are voting early because they're leaning Kerry or are the subject of local Democratic GOTV campaigns, as some have speculated is part of what's fueling the turnout in Florida.

Does this mean Kerry will win Tennessee, or America? Not necessarily. But I have a hard time envisioning Bush winning tomorrow if turnout continues to be this heavy.

I'm going to post the official Resonance election predictions tonight so that I can plug all the 11th hour polling data into my sophisticated election models. In reality polls are of limited value at this point; turnout and the supposed non-committeds will determine the election.

One thing I'm grappling with is if this election will follows historical patterns or not. History says that incumbents don't win close re-elections--voters usually break one way or the other. And, if the incumbent is below 50%, he's vulnerable because a majority of the non-committeds go with the challenger.

If these two trends hold true, Kerry could win rather comfortably. But we won't know until tomorrow.

I will offer one prediction now: I think we will know the outcome late Thursday night or early Friday morning. A number of pundits have fretted about a replay of 2000. I doubt it. While there may be a number of close states, I don't think the electoral margin will be narrow enough for there to be contested states. 2000 Florida was a freakish thing; the odds against it happening twice in a row are slim.

I'll be glad when this election is over, if for no other reason because maybe then NBC News will shut up about Rockefeller Center Democracy Plaza. Enough already.

Things have already heated up on the electoral litigation front:

A federal judge issued an order about 1:30 a.m. today barring political party challengers from polling places throughout Ohio during Tuesday's election.

U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing challengers at polling places is unconstitutional. She said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting.

Republicans say they are appealing to the 6th Circuit. If the ruling holds, it will be a big setback in the GOP's vote suppression plans.