Revised Cover

Check out who did the intro to my upcoming book!

To the People of New Hampshire

You have an important decision to make today. You have a choice between the one Democratic candidate, Howard Dean, with the guts and gumption to take on George W. Bush this coming fall, and an ordinary Democrat like John Kerry or John Edwards.

Howard Dean is far from perfect. I disagree with him on many issues, especially the war in Afghanistan. And it’s a little weird to know that your president sometimes growls like a Siberian snow leopard. But none of the other major contenders can beat Bush.

First and foremost, the nation has become so polarized that the “swing vote” has all but disappeared. I discovered this trend while researching my new book. What used to be a 40% Democratic-20% Independent-40% Republican nation is now closer to 45-10-45. The key to electoral success, as Gore and Bush discovered in 2000, is energizing your party’s base. All of those pumped-up twentysomethings–the successor to the Gen Xers who elected Clinton in 1992–are not going to vote for pro-Iraq war Kerry, or vote at all. Old-line liberals won’t turn out in sufficient numbers. In the final analysis, the difference between Kerry and Bush isn’t great enough to convince the American people to make a change.

Bush is a disaster. He has nearly bankrupted the federal government and many states with his profligate spending policies. He has planted the seed of fascism in the highest levels of government with his concentration camp, red-baiting and increased surveillance powers for Das Homeland. And it’s a fair bet that he’s planning more unwinnable wars for 2005. The Democratic Party needs its best chance at defeating him this fall, and that chance isn’t in the form of John Kerry.

I fear that too many Democrats, and too many Americans, don’t get it. If Bush wins this election, there may never be another one.

If you live in New Hampshire, vote Dean.

376 pp., all prose/no cartoons/all new content, nothing reprinted

TO PURCHASE this important book: you may either pre-order from Amazon or watch Soft Skull Press’ website.

BOOK REVIEWERS/EDITORS: Contact me to receive an advance review copy.

News for Completists

I wrote the introduction for the new MAD Magazine anthology of comic strip parodies. If that isn’t enough to prompt you to buy a copy (and I’m not sure it should be), they really are very, very funny parodies running the gamut from the 1950s to the present. A must for comics fans, methinks.

Heck, looks like I’ll have to buy one myself since MAD didn’t bother to send me a comp copy.

Bush-appointed WMD inspector has resigned. The first question on most people’s minds was “why?”–a question not asked or answered in most American media reports about what easily rates as the week’s most dramatic story.

General Wesley Clark

FOR Rachel sends me the following:

I was wondering what your take on Gen. Wesley Clark is. True, he may or may not have supported the war (see http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7720762.htm), but many of the Democratic candidates did support the war. Dean’s stance against the war makes him stand out but does not necessarily mean he will win against Bush. You mentioned that the Rev. Al Sharpton “won” after using Whack-A-Pol (he did for me, too).

The economy and national security will most likely be key issues this November. Bush will inevitably portray himself as a strong president when it comes to security. Of course, the AWOL Asshole will not have much of a chance to do this next to Clark.

I’m surprised I haven’t seen any hint of your opinion on Clark. Back in August of 2003, your article “Love Me, I’m (Not Really) a Liberal” didn’t endorse Dean; in fact, you described him as “opportunistic” and providing “strident vagaries that fuel (his supporters’) self-delusion.” Granted, these are general political tools, but in less than 6 months you endorsed him. I’m finding that many liberals get caught up in a popularity contest. Of course it’s about beating Bush (without the help of Republican-in-sheep’s clothing Lieberman). I was wondering if there was any other reason, besides big talk from the Dean camp, why you endorsed him?

Thanks for your time!

Great questions all. Let me take them one at a time.

1. I haven’t discussed Clark because (a) I don’t think he stands a chance of winning the Democratic nomination and (b) his decision to refuse to accept the vice-presidency negated him as a personality of interest for me. When he got into the race at the last minute (arguably, beyond the last minute) I assumed that he was running for the veep spot. Those stars would have made a big difference; a Dean-Clark ticket would have rocked. That said, he was a registered Republican until a month before he announced that he was running and there’s a better choice for Dean’s possible future veep (assuming he wins the nomination–I’m astonished that Iowa caucausers didn’t see him as being the most electable of the bunch) in the form of Florida Senator Bob Graham.

2. Why did I endorse Dean? As I wrote way back in August, Dean isn’t a liberal. He’s pro-business, a deficit hawk (which I agree with, by the way), supported the war in Afghanistan, etc. Were I going to support a candidate whose positions I agreed with, I would have picked Sharpton or Kucinich. Neither man, however, stands a chance of winning the nomination. Dean, however, stood a chance and still does–I’m keeping my money on him. Had Joe Lieberman, whose positions nearly make him a Republican, had the best chance of kicking Bush’s ass come November, I would have endorsed him.

This election is critical. Our economy is in fiscal freefall, we’re bogged down in two unwinnable wars, we’ve pissed off our allies and our government has been hijacked by a cabal of roughly a dozen neofascist loons. What mainline Dems don’t get, as proven by the wimpy Democratic response to Bush’s State of the Union Address last night, is that they’re not running against a normal Republican. This time it’s for keeps. If Bush goes back for a second term, with a GOP Congress and Supreme Court, they’ll be out of control.

This time we’re playing for all the marbles. Losing isn’t an option.

Separated at Birth?

There’s a photo of Scott Peterson awaiting trial on page A10 of today’s New York Times that caused me to ask: are Scott and Ben Affleck the same person?

Just asking.

We’ll Always Have New Hampshire

Obviously I was wrong to prognosticate Howard Dean victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. Well, half wrong so far, anyway. you probably ought to consider my primary prediction record when considering the rest of today’s post.

The grand irony is that John Kerry won Iowa by convincing caucus delegates that Howard Dean couldn’t beat Bush in November–when in fact, Howard Dean is the only Democratic presidential contender who can.

In Howard Dean Republicans would be faced with the first aggressive Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ–a guy who’s as mean as he is smart. And we need someone mean to parry Karl Rove’s dirty tricks and lying attack ads–not to mention to convey to an insecure post-9/11 electorate a sense of strength and determination.

That man, unless I’ve missed something, doesn’t seem to be John Kerry or John Edwards.

Today’s Associated Press analysis reads, in part:

Aides to Kerry and Edwards said their positive messages contrasted with Dean and Gephardt. ”I hate mudslinging,” said Theresa Strabala, who voted for Edwards.

Jesus H. Christ. When are Democrats going to learn? Politics ain’t a tea party. It’s a bar brawl. Come this fall, when Bush’s neofascist thugs are administering a ferocious beatdown to the Democratic nominee, we’re all going to wish we’d sent someone to the brawl who knows how to sling mud, kick ass and keep on going.

Stung by criticism of his record on race relations, Medicare and trade, Dean said a week ago he was tired of being the party’s ”pin cushion,” and suddenly looked weak to voters drawn to his blustery image.

This is what leading Democrats I’ve been talking to have been echoing in recent weeks. I agree with them. Dean decided to try to run out the clock after achieving frontrunner status–don’t mess it up, just keep coasting–without understanding that his rivals would view his approach as an invitation to attack. Dean got as far as he did, expecting to receive 42 percent in Iowa just two weeks ago, by aggressively chastising Bush and his fellow Democrats for selling out the American people and getting us into the unwinnable Iraqi quagmire. He needs to get back to what he does best–standing up for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party–and quick.

Fortunately, New Hampshire is a truer measure of the feelings of the Democratic Party, the first true primary. Iowa doesn’t even require its caucus attendees to present proof of state residency, as Dan Savage wrote in the New York Times a few days ago. It’s prone to manipulation by party bosses. Never doubt for a minute that the clammy hand of Al From’s Democratic Leadership Council is behind the Dean defeat in Iowa…the abominable “Stop Dean” campaign came out of Washington, dutifully fueled by a gullible and compliant media.

I will support any Democrat against George W. Bush this fall. Despite their faults, Kerry and Edwards would represent substantial improvements over Bush. (And Dean is hardly perfect either–he still supports the invasion of Afghanistan, which was no more justifiable or winnable than Iraq.) After all, none of the remaining seven candidates–Mosely-Braun and Gephardt have dropped out–echo Bush’s neofascism.

That said, we need a winner in November. Unless Kerry changes his tune (saying that Bush conned him into supporting the war, though it’s obviously untrue, would be a start), I don’t think he’s got what it takes.

Why don’t Democrats realize what’s at stake this year?

The Mathematics of War in Iraq, continued

I’ve received some interesting feedback concerning my post about US casualties in Iraq. Julian writes:

Your blog entry “The Mathematics of the War in Iraq”

was very convincing. I’d like to make one small

correction.

You claimed that 2,445 American soldiers have been

wounded. However, according to NPR, the Army has

evacuated 9,000 soldiers from Iraq for medical

reasons.

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1587762

I’m more inclined to believe NPR’s estimate than the Pentagon’s, and here’s why: a good rule of thumb in active combat zone is that injuries outnumber deaths by a ratio of roughly 1 to 15. That said, I used the official Pentagon assessment. There I go, getting criticized for being too conservative.

Then Brian sent the following, far more detailed response:

You have made an error in calculating the relative magnitude of deaths between Bagdad and New York City. You are comparing the rate of homicides in NYC to the whole of the population (just fine) but you compare the deaths of American/Alliance soldiers only to their numbers in Bagdad (rather than to the population as a whole). That is fallacious. To be correct in comparing the homicide rates of these two cities, the whole population of each – troops/cops and general population together – must be used…you didn’t do that. For example, you chose Occupier deaths that occurred throughout the country, not Bagdad alone. Obviously, the number of Occupier deaths that occurred only in Bagdad is a subset of the total number you cite.

I’m sticking with my methodology. Conservatives, after all, claim that Iraq is safer for US servicemen than the mean streets of New York City. The best way to compare apples with apples is to rate each scenario’s per capita chances of being murdered: the danger to a US serviceman in Iraq is found by dividing the number of killings of US servicemen divided by the total number of servicemen serving there. (And I didn’t focus just on Baghdad anyway.) The method that Brian suggests would be a good way to determine whether Iraq or New York are safer as a general part of the population–but that’s a different exercise. I don’t know what the odds are of being murdered if you’re an ordinary Iraqi citizen. But US soldiers are singled out for murder in Iraq. Back here at home, they’re not.

It is a mixed bag of facts you use and the result is gobbledygook that does not support your premise that Iraq is a dangerous place…I’m NOT saying Iraq isn’t dangerous, just saying what you compare is apples to potatoes and is inconclusive.

It would be better to compare the NYC crime rate to Iraq’s crime rate…Your blog entry gives numbers so I shall use them to illustrate:

——-quote———

There are 125,000 American troops serving in Iraq. By contrast, the updated 2002 Census Report says that 8,008,278 people live in New York City–64 times the American “population” of Iraq.

——–unquote——-

From http://www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/asia/iq.htm the Iraqi population is 26,298,000. Add 125,000 Occupiers and that’s 26.4 Million. That’s a bit over three times the population of NYC you cite. However, I’m not asserting that this comparison is valid (I’m not done yet.) Notice that although the homicide numbers you cite for NYC include all homicides, the homicide numbers you use for Iraq are only for Occupiers and exclude any civilian homicide deaths. Those must be included if the comparison is to be valid. How many civilians have been murdered(killed) since the beginning of hostilities? I have no idea where to begin to gather accurate data but I bet you do. Once you find that number (it’s got to be in the tens of thousands) add those civilian deaths to the Occupiers death toll (divide by 26.4 million to get the per capita homicide rate) and then compare that to NYC with 618 homicides per 8 million population…I predict you will find the relative death toll to be far higher in Iraq than on the mean streets of NYC.

I bet that’s true. But it’s not what I was trying to discuss.

Another way of comparing apples to apples is to compare the death rate of police officers in NYC to that of Occupier troops killed in Iraq + the Iraqi policemen that have been killed. NYC’s police force is 38,000 (www.nypd.net) and I doubt more than a handful get killed in a year. Iraqi police force numbers are harder to estimate. Find those numbers and you have a valid comparison…again, I predict it will fairly show that Iraq is a dangerous place.

I hope I have explained how your entry had erroneous comparisons and how useful, fair comparisons can be constructed.

Sorry, but Brian and I are just not talking about the same thing. The question isn’t about which place is safer for civilians, or cops, but for US soldiers. And my comparison holds up.

I’ll be away from the blog until next week.