USA TODAY: “Clark’s Democratic presidential bid could be in serious trouble.”

DOH! I meant to post on this earlier, but you can listen to the Blogging of the President radio show live right now at that link. At the moment, Ed Cone is comparing Howard Dean to WebVan. Meanwhile, on John Edwards, Cone observes: “If you meet him in person, you want to go home with him.”

Er, I like Edwards, but not, you know, that way.

UPDATE: Listened to the whole (remaining) thing, as I tried to finish up an article with a Tuesday deadline. Not bad, with a number of useful insights and some amusing fencing between Sullivan and Atrios (Sullivan asked Atrios when he’d last criticized someone on the Left; Atrios couldn’t remember). Frank Rich was engaging, and said he reads a lot of blogs. Jeff Jarvis offered a lot of first-class commentary. Chris Lydon did an excellent job hosting, though his insistence (which was also present in an interview he did with me a while back) that the New York Times was staunchly pro-war was as incomprehensible to me this time around as it was before. Still, quite a good program.

Daniel Drezner listened, and has more comments.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Sullivan is asking Atrios for examples, now.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s someone who noticed Lydon’s earlier comment on the NYT’s alleged pro-war bias.

COOL PICTURES FROM MARS, via the Opportunity rover.

MORE EVIDENCE that the British public is taking a tougher line on crime than the British government.

JACK BALKIN has two interesting posts: One on “What I learned about blogging in a year,” and one on why the New York Times is wrong about the effect of the Internet on politics. Read ’em both.

THE DETROIT NEWS is advertising for bloggers.

IT’S WORKING:

Joyful Iraqi pilgrims arriving in Saudi Arabia on Sunday said they would thank God for ending the rule of Saddam Hussein in prayers during haj pilgrimage but other Arabs were thinking of the U.S. occupation. . . .

“I and many people are thankful toward the United States because they were able to release us and we will definitely never forget. I don’t think any Muslim can forget this,” he said, standing by Kurdish and Iraqi flags beside the Iraqi pilgrims.

Somebody tell Howard Dean.

I’VE BEEN SAYING FOR A LONG TIME that Bush is vulnerable in 2004, regardless of how confident the GOP seems to feel. (Here’s an old post on that, but just enter the words bush and vulnerable in the search window to see a lot more). Now Tacitus is weighing in. Even this, rather optimistic charting shows Bush trending downward. I think that’s because the big-spending, “compassionate conservative” stuff is alienating more conservatives and libertarians than it is winning over undecideds.

Projecting the 2004 elections based on today’s polls is a fool’s game — you’d think that Iowa would have taught people how volatile polls are — but that doesn’t mean that Bush’s people should be overly confident. And as for those Bush/Churchill analogies, remember what happened to Churchill the minute people felt safe.

UPDATE: Reader Carole Newton sends this, which is typical of quite a few emails that I got in response to this post:

Bush, Rove et al thought that to keep the GOP conservatives happy, all they had to do was cut taxes and support and pass a bill against “partial-birth” abortions. Wrong. With the outlandish spending by a GOP-controlled Congress, the stupid and costly prescription drug bill, the over-reaching No Child Left Behind Education Act and the immigration proposal (no matter how they try to spin it, their proposal is amnesty for illegal aliens), they have lost a very considerable number of Republican voters like me.

I have voted Republican all my voting life (I am 60 years old) and I can tell you emphatically that I will not be voting at all for the first time. I certainly will never vote for a Democrat and Bush has morphed into a Democrat as far as I am concerned. The Powers-That-Be in the Republican Party know this about their “base” but are ignoring it, much to the peril of George W. Bush in November 2004.

A non-trivial number of people are saying this. Most of ’em will probably wind up holding their nose and voting for Bush in November. But not all.

MORE: Another reader writes:

As a Republican, I welcome all hard core conservatives who are so disgustedto not vote for Bush. And if he loses, I also welcome them to recuse themselves TOTALLY from the political discussion over the next 4 years, especially when Pres. Kerry gets to nominate 1 or more members of the SCOTUS. Because if that happens, they have themselves to blame, nobody else.

They better learn the lesson that the Nader Democrats learned last election-half a loaf is better than none. Time for them to get their priorities straight. The potential SCOTUS openings should trump all other considerations for them. If they want to mount pressure, they’re best off doing it in the Senate, where a key vote can make a crucial difference…

I expect we’ll hear this debate for several months.

STILL MORE: Reader Roscoe Shrewsbury emails: “You should have written, ‘It’s the immigration, stupid’.”

Hmm. Well, maybe. That’s not what my email suggests, but I’m sure it’s not a scientific sampling. I haven’t seen any polls on that. Has anyone?

MORE YET: Bill Peschel sends this link to a poll suggesting that immigration isn’t a big issue with very many voters.

MUSHARRAF AT DAVOS: Some interesting observations.

UPDATE: Speaking of Davos, all I can say is bravo for Bill Clinton, for reminding people there that the war on terror isn’t some sort of Bush fantasy, much as they might like to believe that:

And you may be interested to know that any time he referred to the Bush administration, or alluded to it, it was in a complimentary way. He told this crowd — again, a crowd that could use hearing it, especially from this source — that much of what we’re doing, successfully, in the War on Terror never makes the newspapers. For example, “cells are rolled up,” which you never hear about. The administration has achieved “cooperation with other governments” that is not “inherently sensational” but “has saved a lot of people’s lives.” You never hear about this bomb found in this container on this cargo ship destined for this port — and “I could give you 50 other examples.”

Good for him. Add this to his earlier comments on WMD, and it’s a major blow to the loonier sections of the anti-war crowd.

DOH! The Clinton link above was broken. Sorry. Fixed now.

MICKEY KAUS explains why he can’t stand John Kerry.

DONALD SENSING weighs in on the Wesley Clark / Michael Moore claims that Bush was a “deserter” and has some very harsh words:

Three observations here. First, Jennings was quite correct to point out that the accusation of George W. Bush’s presumed absences is “a reckless charge not supported by the facts.”

Second, Clark, a retired four-star general, admits he is entirely unconcerned that an ideologue celebrity has made this most serious, unfounded charge against the commander in chief. . . .

Third, practically no civilian actually knows what desertion really is.

He’s pretty hard on Mark Kleiman, too.

UPDATE: Bad link before. Fixed now. Sorry.

HERE’S SOMETHING FROM DAVID KAY that hasn’t gotten as much attention as other things he’s said:

David Kay, the former head of the coalition’s hunt for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year’s war to overthrow Saddam.

“We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,” he said. “But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”

Dr Kay’s comments will intensify pressure on President Bashar Assad to clarify the extent of his co-operation with Saddam’s regime and details of Syria’s WMD programme. Mr Assad has said that Syria was entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own biological and chemical weapons arsenal.

Hmm. We’ve been hearing those reports from various sources of uncertain reliability (like Debka) since the war. But this is a bit more significant. Is Syria next?

UPDATE: Michael Ubaldi emails: “You know, when I read the Kay report it was a brief in Reuters and the first thought I had was, ‘Okay, what did Kay say that they didn’t report?’ Trouble is, the abbreviated version has had two days to sink in.” Yeah, you’d almost think somebody wants it that way.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More on this here, from Blaster’s Blog.

I WONDER WHAT THIS was all about?

A security guard at a BASF Corp. chemical plant was shot in the shoulder after he approached a suspicious truck and talked to a man who said he had been taking pictures, authorities said.

The guard’s name was not released, but Freeport police said he was doing well at a Brazosport hospital following the Friday night shooting.

The guard told police the gunman was a man of Middle Eastern descent with bushy hair and a mustache. The man was driving a white pickup with tinted windows and a black stripe.

Probably not terrorist-related, but . . . .

SAMIZDATA has received an upgrade.

WONKETTE IS CRUSHING ON JOSH MARSHALL: “Look, he’s blogging so fast, he has warped the very fabric of time and space!” (Sure, she tries to sound snarky, but they always do when they’ve got a crush. . . .)

Here at InstaPundit, where Josh Marshall is admired — but not, you know, that way — the photo Wonkette is gushing about inspired, er, different thoughts.

JOHN STOSSEL had an excellent program last night on 20/20, called Lies, Myths, and Stupidity. It was even-toned myth-busting on subjects ranging from health, to gun control, to DDT and malaria, to the environment.

The program was tied to his new book, Give Me a Break, which — to judge from its subtitle, How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media, may be somewhat less even in its tone. (Or maybe not — publishers often choose titles, as we’ve discussed before.) The program, at any rate, was just terrific. I’ve ordered the book, and I’ll see if I like it as much.

JACK SHAFER COMMENTS on the Senate computer-files scandal:

I wonder how the Globe would have covered the story had a Democratic staffer stumbled upon a stack of incendiary strategy memos by Republican staffers. If she shared them with her colleagues and then with the Globe, would the Globe have eagerly printed excerpts of them? You betcha. And would Republicans scream holy hell and demand an investigation after the Globe went to press? You betcha. And would the Globe and the Times be editorializing about the investigation’s “chilling effect” on dissent and free speech? You betcha, again.

Clearly, whenever the Senate investigates itself, it’s news. Likewise, the identity, motivations, and modus operandi of these leakers is news, too. But, like York, I can’t help but think there’s a journalistic double standard operating here in which partisan leaks to conservative journals and journalists (the Novak-Plame incident, for another example) are treated as capital crimes, but partisan leaks that wound Republicans are regarded the highest form of truth telling.

And it gets worse, apparently, in an election year.

UPDATE: Robert Racansky emails:

One doesn’t have to wonder too much.

Back in 1997, the New York Times printed transcripts of an intercepted telephone call between Newt Gingrich and Republican strategists. The tape was provided to the press by Rep. Jim McDermott (one of the “Baghdad Democrats” Link):

Jan. 10, 1997 — The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution report on an intercepted cell phone conversation indicating Gingrich may have violated his Dec. 21 agreement with the panel not to orchestrate a GOP counterattack against the charges. In a telephone conversation taped that day, and subsequently obtained by the two papers, the speaker is heard reacting favorably to strategy concocted by GOP operative Ed Gillespie.

Jan. 14, 1997 — Under fire for accepting the tape of Gingrich’s phone call, the ethics committee’s ranking Democrat, Jim McDermott (Wash.) recuses himself from further consideration of the Gingrich matter, on condition that one Republican also step aside from the ethics committee to maintain the panel’s partisan balance. Unrepentant, McDermott blasts ethics chair Nancy Johnson (R-Conn) and committee Republicans, who he says “stonewalled or otherwise “obstructed sensible efforts to get at the whole truth.”

Yes, I remember that incident.

SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER