A preview of a story to run in tomorrow's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/ar...l?pagewanted=1

FRANK RICH
Napster Runs for President in '04

Published: December 21, 2003


Even after Saddam Hussein was captured last weekend, all that some people
could talk about was Howard Dean. Neither John Kerry nor Joe Lieberman could
resist punctuating their cheers for an American victory with sour sideswipes
at the front-runner they still cannot fathom (or catch up to). Pundits had a
nearly unanimous take on the capture's political fallout: Dr. Dean, the
one-issue candidate tethered to Iraq, was toast - or, as The Washington
Post's Tom Shales memorably put it, "left looking like a monkey whose organ
grinder had run away."

I am not a partisan of Dr. Dean or any other Democratic candidate. I don't
know what will happen on Election Day 2004. But I do know this: the rise of
Howard Dean is not your typical political Cinderella story. The constant
comparisons made between him and George McGovern and Barry Goldwater - each
of whom rode a wave of anger within his party to his doomed nomination - are
facile. Yes, Dr. Dean's followers are angry about his signature issue, the
war. Dr. Dean is marginalized in other ways as well: a heretofore obscure
governor from a tiny state best known for its left-wing ice cream and gay
civil unions, a flip-flopper on some pivotal issues and something of a
hothead. This litany of flaws has been repeated at every juncture of the
campaign this far, just as it is now. And yet the guy keeps coming back,
surprising those in Washington and his own party who misunderstand the
phenomenon and dismiss him.

The elusive piece of this phenomenon is cultural: the Internet. Rather than
compare Dr. Dean to McGovern or Goldwater, it may make more sense to recall
Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. It was not until F.D.R.'s fireside
chats on radio in 1933 that a medium in mass use for years became a
political force. J.F.K. did the same for television, not only by vanquishing
the camera-challenged Richard Nixon during the 1960 debates but by replacing
the Eisenhower White House's prerecorded TV news conferences (which could be
cleaned up with editing) with live broadcasts. Until Kennedy proved
otherwise, most of Washington's wise men thought, as The New York Times
columnist James Reston wrote in 1961, that a spontaneous televised press
conference was "the goofiest idea since the Hula Hoop."

Such has been much of the reaction to the Dean campaign's breakthrough use
of its chosen medium. In Washington, the Internet is still seen mainly as a
high-velocity disseminator of gossip (Drudge) and rabidly partisan
sharpshooting by self-publishing excoriators of the left and right. When
used by campaigns, the Internet becomes a synonym for "the young," "geeks,"
"small contributors" and "upper middle class," as if it were an eccentric
electronic cousin to direct-mail fund-raising run by the acne-prone members
of a suburban high school's computer club. In other words, the political
establishment has been blindsided by the Internet's growing sophistication
as a political tool - and therefore blindsided by the Dean campaign - much
as the music industry establishment was by file sharing and the major movie
studios were by "The Blair Witch Project," the amateurish under-$100,000
movie that turned viral marketing on the Web into a financial mother lode.

The condescending reaction to the Dean insurgency by television's political
correspondents can be reminiscent of that hilarious party scene in the movie
"Singin' in the Rain," where Hollywood's silent-era elite greets the advent
of talkies with dismissive bafflement. "The Internet has yet to mature as a
political tool," intoned Carl Cameron of Fox News last summer as he reported
that the runner-up group to Dean supporters on the meetup.com site was
witches. "If you want to be a Deaniac," ABC News's Claire Shipman said this
fall, "you've got to know the lingo," as she dutifully gave her viewers an
uninformed definition of "blogging."

In Washington, the only place in America where HBO's now-canceled "K Street"
aroused histrionic debate, TV remains all. No one knew what to make of the
mixed message sent by Dr. Dean's performance on "Meet the Press" in June:
though the candidate flunked a pop quiz about American troop strength (just
as George W. Bush flunked a pop quiz about world leaders in 1999), his
Internet site broke its previous Sunday record for contributions by a factor
of more than 10. More recently, the dean of capital journalists, David
Broder, dyspeptically wrote that "Dean failed to dominate any of the
Democratic candidate debates." True, but those few Americans who watched the
debates didn't exactly rush to the candidate who did effortlessly dominate
most of them, Al Sharpton. (Mr. Sharpton's reward for his performance wasn't
poll numbers or contributions but, appropriately enough, a gig as a guest
host on "Saturday Night Live.")

"People don't realize what's happened since 2000," said Joe Trippi, the Dean
campaign manager, when I spoke to him shortly after Al Gore, the Democrats'
would-be technopresident, impulsively crowned Dr. Dean as his heir. "Since
2000, many more millions have bought a book at Amazon and held an auction on
e-Bay. John McCain's Internet campaign was amazing three years ago but looks
primitive now." The Dean campaign, Mr. Trippi explained, is "not just people
e-mailing each other and chatting in chat rooms." His campaign has those and
more - all served by countless sites, many of them awash in multi-media,
that link the personal (photos included) to the political as tightly as they
link to each other.

They are efficient: type in a ZIP code and you meet Dean-inclined neighbors.
Search tools instantly locate postings on subjects both practical (a book to
give as a present to a Dean supporter?) and ideological. The official
bloggers update the news and spin it as obsessively as independent bloggers
do. To while away an afternoon, go to the left-hand column of the official
blogforamerica.com page and tour the unofficial sites. On one of three
Mormon-centric pages, you can find the answer to the question "Can Mormons
be Democrats?" (Yes, they can, and yes, they can vote for Howard Dean.) At
www.projectdeanlight.com, volunteers compete at their own expense to outdo
each other with slick Dean commercials.

But the big Dean innovation is to empower passionate supporters to leave
their computer screens entirely to hunt down unwired supporters as well and
to gather together in real time at face-to-face meetings they organize on
their own with no help from (or cost to) the campaign hierarchy. Meetup.com,
the for-profit Web site that the Dean campaign contracted to facilitate
these meetings, didn't even exist until last year. (It is not to be confused
with the symbiotic but more conventional liberal advocacy and fund-raising
site, MoveOn.org.) Its success is part of the same cultural wave as last
summer's "flash mob" craze (crowds using the Internet to converge at the
same public place at the same time as a prank) and, more substantially, the
spike in real rather than virtual social networks, for dating and otherwise,
through sites like match.com and friendster.com. From Mr. Trippi's
perspective, "The Internet puts back into the campaign what TV took out -
people."

To say that the competing campaigns don't get it is an understatement. A
tough new anti-Dean attack ad has been put up on the campaign's own site,
where it's a magnet for hundreds of thousands of dollars in new
contributions. The twice-divorced Dennis Kucinich's most effective use of
the Web thus far has been to have a public date with the winner of a "Who
Wants to Be a First Lady?" Internet contest. Though others have caught up
with meetup.com, only the Wesley Clark campaign is racing to mirror Dr.
Dean's in most particulars. The other Democratic Web sites are very 2000,
despite all their blogs and other gizmos.

"The term blog is now so ubiquitous everyone has to use it," says the author
Steven Johnson, whose prescient 2001 book "Emergence" is essential reading
for anyone seeking to understand this culture. On some candidates' sites, he
observes, "there is no difference between a blog and a chronological list of
press releases." And the presence of a poll on a site hardly constitutes
interactivity. The underlying principles of the Dean Internet campaign "are
the opposite of a poll," Mr. Johnson says. Much as thousands of connected
techies perfected the Linux operating system's code through open
collaboration, so Dean online followers collaborate on organizing and
perfecting the campaign, their ideas trickling up from the bottom rather
than being superimposed from national headquarters. (Or at least their
campaign ideas trickle up; policy is still concentrated at the top.) It's
almost as if Dr. Dean is "a system running for president," in Mr. Johnson's
view, as opposed to a person.

In that sense, the candidate is a perfect fit for his chosen medium. Though
his campaign's Internet dependence was initially dictated by necessity when
he had little organization and no money, it still serves his no-frills
personality even when he's the fund-raising champ. Dr. Dean runs the least
personal of campaigns; his wife avoids the stump. That's a strategy
befitting an online, not an on-TV, personality. Dr. Dean's irascible
polemical tone is made for the Web, too. Jonah Peretti, a new media
specialist at Eyebeam, an arts organization in New York, observes that
boldness is to the Internet what F.D.R.'s voice was to radio and J.F.K.'s
image to television: "A moderate message is not the kind of thing that
friends want to e-mail to each other and say, `You gotta take a look at
this!' "

Unlike Al Gore, Dr. Dean doesn't aspire to be hip about computers. "The
Internet is a tool, not a campaign platform," he has rightly said, and he
needn't be a techie any more than pilot his own campaign plane. But if no
tool, however powerful, can make anyone president in itself, it can smash
opponents hard when it draws a ton of cash. Money talks to the old media and
buys its advertising. Dr. Dean's message has already upstaged the official
Democratic party and its presumed rulers, the Clintons. Thanks to the
Supreme Court's upholding of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, he
also holds a strategic advantage over the Democratic National Committee in
fund-raising, at least for now.

Should Dr. Dean actually end up running against President Bush next year, an
utterly asymmetrical battle will be joined. The Bush-Cheney machine is a
centralized hierarchy reflecting its pre-digital C.E.O. ethos (and the
political training of Karl Rove); it is accustomed to broadcasting to voters
from on high rather than drawing most of its grass-roots power from what
bubbles up from insurgents below.

For all sorts of real-world reasons, stretching from Baghdad to Wall Street,
Mr. Bush could squish Dr. Dean like a bug next November. But just as
anything can happen in politics, anything can happen on the Internet. The
music industry thought tough talk, hard-knuckle litigation and lobbying
Congress could stop the forces unleashed by Shawn Fanning, the teenager
behind Napster. Today the record business is in meltdown, and more Americans
use file-sharing software than voted for Mr. Bush in the last presidential
election. The luckiest thing that could happen to the Dean campaign is that
its opponents remain oblivious to recent digital history and keep focusing
on analog analogies to McGovern and Goldwater instead.

"Sandman" wrote in message . ..
A preview of a story to run in tomorrow's NY Times:

Do you even read your own cut-and pasted blather, Sandi?

If you did, you would've noticed the lead sentence in the concluding
paragragh:

"For all sorts of real-world reasons, stretching from Baghdad to Wall
Street,
Mr. Bush could squish Dr. Dean like a bug next November."

Operative term being "real-world"...

So remain in your little pink bubble of easy-bake ovens, my little
ponies and Mystery Date, girlfriend...

Dean IS a bug in the real world.



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/ar...l?pagewanted=1

FRANK RICH
Napster Runs for President in '04

Published: December 21, 2003


Even after Saddam Hussein was captured last weekend, all that some people
could talk about was Howard Dean. Neither John Kerry nor Joe Lieberman could
resist punctuating their cheers for an American victory with sour sideswipes
at the front-runner they still cannot fathom (or catch up to). Pundits had a
nearly unanimous take on the capture's political fallout: Dr. Dean, the
one-issue candidate tethered to Iraq, was toast - or, as The Washington
Post's Tom Shales memorably put it, "left looking like a monkey whose organ
grinder had run away."

I am not a partisan of Dr. Dean or any other Democratic candidate. I don't
know what will happen on Election Day 2004. But I do know this: the rise of
Howard Dean is not your typical political Cinderella story. The constant
comparisons made between him and George McGovern and Barry Goldwater - each
of whom rode a wave of anger within his party to his doomed nomination - are
facile. Yes, Dr. Dean's followers are angry about his signature issue, the
war. Dr. Dean is marginalized in other ways as well: a heretofore obscure
governor from a tiny state best known for its left-wing ice cream and gay
civil unions, a flip-flopper on some pivotal issues and something of a
hothead. This litany of flaws has been repeated at every juncture of the
campaign this far, just as it is now. And yet the guy keeps coming back,
surprising those in Washington and his own party who misunderstand the
phenomenon and dismiss him.

The elusive piece of this phenomenon is cultural: the Internet. Rather than
compare Dr. Dean to McGovern or Goldwater, it may make more sense to recall
Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. It was not until F.D.R.'s fireside
chats on radio in 1933 that a medium in mass use for years became a
political force. J.F.K. did the same for television, not only by vanquishing
the camera-challenged Richard Nixon during the 1960 debates but by replacing
the Eisenhower White House's prerecorded TV news conferences (which could be
cleaned up with editing) with live broadcasts. Until Kennedy proved
otherwise, most of Washington's wise men thought, as The New York Times
columnist James Reston wrote in 1961, that a spontaneous televised press
conference was "the goofiest idea since the Hula Hoop."

Such has been much of the reaction to the Dean campaign's breakthrough use
of its chosen medium. In Washington, the Internet is still seen mainly as a
high-velocity disseminator of gossip (Drudge) and rabidly partisan
sharpshooting by self-publishing excoriators of the left and right. When
used by campaigns, the Internet becomes a synonym for "the young," "geeks,"
"small contributors" and "upper middle class," as if it were an eccentric
electronic cousin to direct-mail fund-raising run by the acne-prone members
of a suburban high school's computer club. In other words, the political
establishment has been blindsided by the Internet's growing sophistication
as a political tool - and therefore blindsided by the Dean campaign - much
as the music industry establishment was by file sharing and the major movie
studios were by "The Blair Witch Project," the amateurish under-$100,000
movie that turned viral marketing on the Web into a financial mother lode.

The condescending reaction to the Dean insurgency by television's political
correspondents can be reminiscent of that hilarious party scene in the movie
"Singin' in the Rain," where Hollywood's silent-era elite greets the advent
of talkies with dismissive bafflement. "The Internet has yet to mature as a
political tool," intoned Carl Cameron of Fox News last summer as he reported
that the runner-up group to Dean supporters on the meetup.com site was
witches. "If you want to be a Deaniac," ABC News's Claire Shipman said this
fall, "you've got to know the lingo," as she dutifully gave her viewers an
uninformed definition of "blogging."

In Washington, the only place in America where HBO's now-canceled "K Street"
aroused histrionic debate, TV remains all. No one knew what to make of the
mixed message sent by Dr. Dean's performance on "Meet the Press" in June:
though the candidate flunked a pop quiz about American troop strength (just
as George W. Bush flunked a pop quiz about world leaders in 1999), his
Internet site broke its previous Sunday record for contributions by a factor
of more than 10. More recently, the dean of capital journalists, David
Broder, dyspeptically wrote that "Dean failed to dominate any of the
Democratic candidate debates." True, but those few Americans who watched the
debates didn't exactly rush to the candidate who did effortlessly dominate
most of them, Al Sharpton. (Mr. Sharpton's reward for his performance wasn't
poll numbers or contributions but, appropriately enough, a gig as a guest
host on "Saturday Night Live.")

"People don't realize what's happened since 2000," said Joe Trippi, the Dean
campaign manager, when I spoke to him shortly after Al Gore, the Democrats'
would-be technopresident, impulsively crowned Dr. Dean as his heir. "Since
2000, many more millions have bought a book at Amazon and held an auction on
e-Bay. John McCain's Internet campaign was amazing three years ago but looks
primitive now." The Dean campaign, Mr. Trippi explained, is "not just people
e-mailing each other and chatting in chat rooms." His campaign has those and
more - all served by countless sites, many of them awash in multi-media,
that link the personal (photos included) to the political as tightly as they
link to each other.

They are efficient: type in a ZIP code and you meet Dean-inclined neighbors.
Search tools instantly locate postings on subjects both practical (a book to
give as a present to a Dean supporter?) and ideological. The official
bloggers update the news and spin it as obsessively as independent bloggers
do. To while away an afternoon, go to the left-hand column of the official
blogforamerica.com page and tour the unofficial sites. On one of three
Mormon-centric pages, you can find the answer to the question "Can Mormons
be Democrats?" (Yes, they can, and yes, they can vote for Howard Dean.) At
www.projectdeanlight.com, volunteers compete at their own expense to outdo
each other with slick Dean commercials.

But the big Dean innovation is to empower passionate supporters to leave
their computer screens entirely to hunt down unwired supporters as well and
to gather together in real time at face-to-face meetings they organize on
their own with no help from (or cost to) the campaign hierarchy. Meetup.com,
the for-profit Web site that the Dean campaign contracted to facilitate
these meetings, didn't even exist until last year. (It is not to be confused
with the symbiotic but more conventional liberal advocacy and fund-raising
site, MoveOn.org.) Its success is part of the same cultural wave as last
summer's "flash mob" craze (crowds using the Internet to converge at the
same public place at the same time as a prank) and, more substantially, the
spike in real rather than virtual social networks, for dating and otherwise,
through sites like match.com and friendster.com. From Mr. Trippi's
perspective, "The Internet puts back into the campaign what TV took out -
people."

To say that the competing campaigns don't get it is an understatement. A
tough new anti-Dean attack ad has been put up on the campaign's own site,
where it's a magnet for hundreds of thousands of dollars in new
contributions. The twice-divorced Dennis Kucinich's most effective use of
the Web thus far has been to have a public date with the winner of a "Who
Wants to Be a First Lady?" Internet contest. Though others have caught up
with meetup.com, only the Wesley Clark campaign is racing to mirror Dr.
Dean's in most particulars. The other Democratic Web sites are very 2000,
despite all their blogs and other gizmos.

"The term blog is now so ubiquitous everyone has to use it," says the author
Steven Johnson, whose prescient 2001 book "Emergence" is essential reading
for anyone seeking to understand this culture. On some candidates' sites, he
observes, "there is no difference between a blog and a chronological list of
press releases." And the presence of a poll on a site hardly constitutes
interactivity. The underlying principles of the Dean Internet campaign "are
the opposite of a poll," Mr. Johnson says. Much as thousands of connected
techies perfected the Linux operating system's code through open
collaboration, so Dean online followers collaborate on organizing and
perfecting the campaign, their ideas trickling up from the bottom rather
than being superimposed from national headquarters. (Or at least their
campaign ideas trickle up; policy is still concentrated at the top.) It's
almost as if Dr. Dean is "a system running for president," in Mr. Johnson's
view, as opposed to a person.

In that sense, the candidate is a perfect fit for his chosen medium. Though
his campaign's Internet dependence was initially dictated by necessity when
he had little organization and no money, it still serves his no-frills
personality even when he's the fund-raising champ. Dr. Dean runs the least
personal of campaigns; his wife avoids the stump. That's a strategy
befitting an online, not an on-TV, personality. Dr. Dean's irascible
polemical tone is made for the Web, too. Jonah Peretti, a new media
specialist at Eyebeam, an arts organization in New York, observes that
boldness is to the Internet what F.D.R.'s voice was to radio and J.F.K.'s
image to television: "A moderate message is not the kind of thing that
friends want to e-mail to each other and say, `You gotta take a look at
this!' "

Unlike Al Gore, Dr. Dean doesn't aspire to be hip about computers. "The
Internet is a tool, not a campaign platform," he has rightly said, and he
needn't be a techie any more than pilot his own campaign plane. But if no
tool, however powerful, can make anyone president in itself, it can smash
opponents hard when it draws a ton of cash. Money talks to the old media and
buys its advertising. Dr. Dean's message has already upstaged the official
Democratic party and its presumed rulers, the Clintons. Thanks to the
Supreme Court's upholding of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, he
also holds a strategic advantage over the Democratic National Committee in
fund-raising, at least for now.

Should Dr. Dean actually end up running against President Bush next year, an
utterly asymmetrical battle will be joined. The Bush-Cheney machine is a
centralized hierarchy reflecting its pre-digital C.E.O. ethos (and the
political training of Karl Rove); it is accustomed to broadcasting to voters
from on high rather than drawing most of its grass-roots power from what
bubbles up from insurgents below.

For all sorts of real-world reasons, stretching from Baghdad to Wall Street,
Mr. Bush could squish Dr. Dean like a bug next November. But just as
anything can happen in politics, anything can happen on the Internet. The
music industry thought tough talk, hard-knuckle litigation and lobbying
Congress could stop the forces unleashed by Shawn Fanning, the teenager
behind Napster. Today the record business is in meltdown, and more Americans
use file-sharing software than voted for Mr. Bush in the last presidential
election. The luckiest thing that could happen to the Dean campaign is that
its opponents remain oblivious to recent digital history and keep focusing
on analog analogies to McGovern and Goldwater instead.

On 21 Dec 2003 06:39:50 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

Dean IS a bug in the real world.

George Will doesn't think so. In fact, he talked just a few minutes
ago about the quandry that the Demos are finding themselves in. If
they nominate Dean, then the Republicans already have ready-made ads
featuring Democrats Dean-bashing. If they *don't* nominate Dean, then
the spector of Teddy Roosevelt was raised, Teddy of course being a
third party candidate that actually came in second in the campaign of
1912. In either case, the *last* thing that Will implied was the
"bug-like" aspect of Dean (unless you are talking about the ubiquitous
cockroach, which you can't get rid of and which takes over your house
- but it doesn't sound like that was *quite* the spin you were putting
on it). Will realizes that Dean, far from being a bug, has actually
energized a "white-hot" cadre of disenfranchised voters.

So, the sooner you guys realize that Dean isn't just a
laughingstock...well, just keep thinking that way. Because that's the
main way that Dean will be able to beat President Bush, barring a
major castastrophe which sinks Bush on its own. I think that even Karl
Rove is probably not taking him for granted at this point.

And, by the way, those of you who eschew the "liberal media", missed a
classic Stephanopolis show today. He made Wes Clark and Dean's
campaign manager cry this morning.

Well, he didn't, but he asked some of the most pointed questions I've
seen yet. He made them really appear to be fumble-mouthed and less
than candid.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2003 06:39:50 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

And, by the way, those of you who eschew the "liberal media", missed a
classic Stephanopolis show today. He made Wes Clark and Dean's
campaign manager cry this morning.

Well, he didn't, but he asked some of the most pointed questions I've
seen yet. He made them really appear to be fumble-mouthed and less
than candid.

Exactly, and if George can get their toungues tied in knots so easily,
what do you think the Republicans will be able to do?

The Republican campaign is correctly waiting for the proper time
to go on the offensive. Stephanopolis was able to provide a glimpse
into these candidates vulnerabilities. It is going to be very humiliating
for either candidate and their supporters (whoever gets the nomination)
when the campaign really begins.

ScottW

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On 21 Dec 2003 06:39:50 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

And, by the way, those of you who eschew the "liberal media", missed a
classic Stephanopolis show today. He made Wes Clark and Dean's
campaign manager cry this morning.

Well, he didn't, but he asked some of the most pointed questions I've
seen yet. He made them really appear to be fumble-mouthed and less
than candid.

Exactly, and if George can get their toungues tied in knots so easily,
what do you think the Republicans will be able to do?

The Republican campaign is correctly waiting for the proper time
to go on the offensive. Stephanopolis was able to provide a glimpse
into these candidates vulnerabilities. It is going to be very humiliating
for either candidate and their supporters (whoever gets the nomination)
when the campaign really begins.

The thing is, you guys refuse to admit that Bush is vulnerable as
well.

That's because you guys only see one side, all of the time. It's your
Achilles Heel.

But I congratulate you for at least watching the hated "liberal
press".

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:49:02 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On 21 Dec 2003 06:39:50 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote:

And, by the way, those of you who eschew the "liberal media", missed a
classic Stephanopolis show today. He made Wes Clark and Dean's
campaign manager cry this morning.

Well, he didn't, but he asked some of the most pointed questions I've
seen yet. He made them really appear to be fumble-mouthed and less
than candid.

Exactly, and if George can get their toungues tied in knots so easily,
what do you think the Republicans will be able to do?

The Republican campaign is correctly waiting for the proper time
to go on the offensive. Stephanopolis was able to provide a glimpse
into these candidates vulnerabilities. It is going to be very
humiliating
for either candidate and their supporters (whoever gets the nomination)
when the campaign really begins.

The thing is, you guys refuse to admit that Bush is vulnerable as
well.

Who are you guys? I am not sold on reelecting Bush.

That's because you guys only see one side, all of the time. It's your
Achilles Heel.

Nice stereotype.

But I congratulate you for at least watching the hated "liberal
press".

I hate all biased media. But it seems all we have.

ScottW

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:00:49 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

The thing is, you guys refuse to admit that Bush is vulnerable as
well.

Who are you guys?

Demo-bashers and right-wing apologists. That's you, dude. To a T.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:00:49 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

The thing is, you guys refuse to admit that Bush is vulnerable as
well.

Who are you guys?

Demo-bashers and right-wing apologists. That's you, dude. To a T.

Ok, if you say so. Guess I'll have to rise up in vehement
opposition to left wing radical reactionaries and their
anti-family socialist agendas.

ScottW

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:57:03 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:00:49 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

The thing is, you guys refuse to admit that Bush is vulnerable as
well.

Who are you guys?

Demo-bashers and right-wing apologists. That's you, dude. To a T.

Ok, if you say so. Guess I'll have to rise up in vehement
opposition to left wing radical reactionaries and their
anti-family socialist agendas.

Fair enough. You have my blessing.

Isn't that nice of me?