BLESS EDWARDS
Its nice to see that you don't have to be an attack dog to be a real politician of consequence. John Edwards made himself known as a first rate politician who doesn't buy the attack dog mantra of most #2 contenders. He will be a real alternative to Hillary in '08 and helps maintain the neutral ground. His strengths are too nascent to be used in this election, so he must consider '08.

Bayh, Richardson, or (my choice - though nobody asked me - Nunn) would be a better VP candidate. Let's not forget what Dean did for us. Don't be stingy with credit my fellow Dems. But let's see Kerry pick with the electoral map in mind. God Bless the USA, and grant us a defeat of W. The country deserves it.

CONGRATS AHNULD
You worsened the deficit problem with your car tax repeal and have now swindled gulible CA'fornians into your $15 billion debt trap. Will you be so popular when you announce the draconian cuts you've made inevitable? Try it. "Flex" your governaator muscles. CA'fornians deserve you -- they voted you in. Bend over CA, your just desserts are coming....................you were the ones who decided that you needed someone from the "cool kids table" to make it happen. As ye vote, so shall ye whine.

EDWARDS QUITS RACE, PLANS TO SIT BY PHONE TIL LATE JULY
He's out.

BUCHANAN WINS DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION
Pat Buchanan, John Kerry same difference. Well, Pat did appear to at least endorse a Democrat. Now, you too can play, Who Said it? Kerry or Buchanan.

LUDDITES WORRY ABOUT VOTING
While I'm sure Jesse Jackson already has a complaint drafted to challenge the November election results, I don't understand this irrational fear of computerized voting. There are breathless ("deeply disturbing") reports today that voting machines were left (gasp) "unguarded" at the University of Georgia, as though someone might boot the things up and start voting for Kucinich, or take them home, load up a copy of "Electronic Vote Crack 2.1, Warez edition" and change the course of history.

Then there's this guy, who has a legitimate complaint unrelated to computer voting -- that no one checks your ID -- who goes on about how insecure it "seems":

The problem is, you get no paper record of how you voted. No receipt comes out, so you can't walk away with anything in your hands that shows how or even whether you actually voted. And I couldn't see any security mechanism that would stop poll workers from casting votes for absentees when no one is around--well, other than the fact that some are supposed to be Republicans and some are supposed to be Democrats and therefore they're supposed to serve as a check on each other. But what if there is a strong third-party challenge? It's not unthinkable that the two major parties could collude and block the third party using these electronic machines and their lack of verifiable output. It's very disturbing. What if the machine misregistered my votes? I have no way of detecting error, and therefore no recourse.

Sounds like someone thinks the magical little people make that fancy, modern voting-machine work. It's witchcraft I tell you. Last time I voted with a punch card or an optically scanned card or one of those lever pulling, curtained machines, I didn't get a paper receipt either. I only got an "I voted" sticker. In each of those cases, there's no way of telling if my vote actually gets counted by anyone. It just disappears into a machine (for the optical and punch cards) or into the ether (for the lever-machine). I don't see anyone counting these things. They do it behind closed doors. Imagine what kind of fraud might be going on, especially in places like downtown St. Louis where you can be sure there are no Republican poll-watchers, or in Cheyenne, where there are probably no Democrats.

Glenn Reynolds suggests we go to the old reliable, secure method of marking an X on our ballots and counting them by hand. Of course, Glenn thinks there's less chance for fraud if all the ballots look different because, you see, people have different handwriting styles and will make their marks in different ways. Personally, I'd use Comic Sans or maybe Palatino Linotype for my X. This X-marking idea assumes that people who can't perform a simple, straight thrusting motion to punch out a hole next to a name could muster the coordination to draw an X. Imagine all the stray marks from Palm Beach County residents when they drop the Sharpie on the Lyndon LaRouche box while simultaneously adjusting their bifocals and trying to prop, one-armed, on their walkers. Imagine a panel of Dade County's brightest holding the cards up to a light to determine that the blotch next to Kerry is a vote for him, but that scribble next to Bush isn't a vote for him. Instead of hanging chads, we'll have manifest blemishes and latent splotches.

Which highlights the reason we use optical scanners, punch cards and voting machines -- and now computers. The votes can be recorded and counted by a machine. You've all heard the get-out-the-vote exhortations about how one vote per princinct would have elected Richard Nixon instead of John Kennedy. And if you're recording the vote by hand, it is much easier to write the number 1,356 instead of 1,355 for your precinct, than it is to forge a ballot or steal an access card and get it to the scanner or computer. And it's gotta be easier to get it by the other judges, than getting out of your chair and forging a ballot or taking a second and third trip to the computer.

Now, I understand that people are worried about hacking, and we are right to demand assurances from Diebold and the other manufacturers that it won't happen. But wake up! Current totals are tabulated by computer, even if the vote itself isn't recorded that way. Why should the new computers present a greater security threat? And these worries come from the same people who trust computers to keep track of their bank deposits and withdrawals at ATM machines.

I'm more worried about the people selected to work the polls, the party henchmen who drive the mentally infirm to the polls with instructions on how to vote a straight ticket and the activist judges keeping downtown St. Louis polling places open late so Democrats will have a shot at Missouri's electoral votes. And don't forget, you can vote with out proving your identity. That's the real problem.

AS NOT SEEN ON TV
Here are some man on the street interviews that you won't see on the network news. I think this is the second anti-Kerry thing I've seen at the Village Voice. I'm confused.

UN SAYS "NO WMD SINCE 1994"
In a report from the UN intended to vindicate the work of its inspection teams, the UN concludes that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after 1994, despite the acknowledgment that Iraq continued to hide its program. The report also found continued WMD programs and other violations of UN resolutions, but don't expect the press to remind you that one of Bush's primary reasons for going to war was to enforce those same resolutions and attempt to render the U.N. relevant. And the current inspection team leader tries to salve the egos of Hans Blix and his team: "You cannot say that only the Americans or the British or the Australians currently inspecting in Iraq are the clever inspectors — and the Americans and the British and the Australians that we had were not."

Anyway, expect John Kerry to use this information as evidence that he's a smarter guy than President Bush. But when Kerry blows with the wind on this today, remember what he said at the beginning of last year:

[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” (Senator John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)

GAY MARRIAGE AS A GATEWAY TO END MARRIAGE
That's what Stanley Kurtz argues in the Weekly Standard. He looks down the slippery slope and finds polygamy and polyamory (and the ACLU has argued in court against laws forbidding polygamy). And he sees among the supporters of gay marriage, the radical feminists from the seventies who have advocated an end to marriage, arguing that it is patriarchal and damaging to women. He even looks at how heterosexuals will play a hand in the devaluing of marriage, presenting an argument that causes me to rethink my ideas on the subject.

IRONICALLY, the form of gay matrimony that may pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage involves heterosexuals. A Brigham Young University professor, Alan J. Hawkins, suggests an all-too-likely scenario in which two heterosexuals of the same sex might marry as a way of obtaining financial benefits. Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Sooner or later, friends like this are going to start contracting same-sex marriages of convenience. The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits, will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. Her friend will gain companionship and a family life. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually.

Kurtz argues that Scandinavia is well down the road to the end of marriage, primarily as a result of recognizing same-sex unions. Any supporter of gay marriage would do well to study Kurtz's arguments and decide whether these are the effects that they intend. And if not, prepare an argument why court-ordered legalized gay marriage would not necessarily lead us down the slippery slope.

BUSH AD BLITZ BEGINS
After months of media focus on Democrats and their attacks on Bush, the President's approval ratings have dropped and polls show Kerry winning the head to head matchup. On March 4, the Bush campaign begins running ads on Fox News Channel, CNN and Fox Sports Net, and maybe the Golf Channel and ESPN.

This is step 1: firm up the base.