ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 27, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO - - Gov. Gray Davis is a unifying force in California politics: Everybody hates him.

That joke, like most jokes, is an exaggeration, but it has an element of truth. Davis, re-elected to a second term last November, not only has very low approval ratings here, but voters will decide on Oct. 7 whether to recall him from office.

This would be the first recall of a governor in California history, but as Davis warns people, if he is recalled, it might happen again and again.

That is because under California’s recall law a governor can be tossed from office without having done anything wrong. Malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office is not required. All you need do is get enough signatures on a petition to have a vote and then a simple majority in a special election to oust the person.

(By way of contrast, in Minnesota the State Supreme Court must certify that a governor has done something wrong before he can be recalled.)

Other California governors have faced recall petition drives - - most notably Ronald Reagan - - but no governor has ever faced an actual recall vote before.

Why Davis? Especially considering he is a liberal Democrat in a liberal Democratic state? One big reason is his public persona.

I am not saying he is the worst politician I have ever seen, but he may be the worst successful politician I have ever seen: He is stiff to the point of being robotic. He seems to have no public skills whatsoever. He does not connect with his audiences, or even with people in his immediate vicinity on stage.

I watched him at a raucous labor rally in Manhattan Beach, south of Los Angeles, on Tuesday, and as delegates to the California Labor Federation yelled and shouted and chanted on his behalf, he stood stiffly with a wooden smile on his face, weakly pawing the air with his fist. He looked like he was approximating emotion rather than really feeling any. I did not see him shake a single hand.

Later that day, Davis flew to San Francisco for a town hall meeting, one of several he is doing. The questions directed to Davis from ordinary citizens ranged from irritated to angry and had a single theme: Why won’t you admit you made any mistakes? Why won’t you take any blame? Why do you keep blaming everybody else?

People want a mea culpa from Davis. Instead, they get a they-a culpa: Everybody is to blame but him.

The state’s energy crisis? The evil power companies did it.

The state’s fiscal crisis? The collapse of the dot-coms and the national economy did it.

The huge increase in the state vehicle tax? His Republican predecessor made it happen.

There is an element of truth in every reply that Davis gave, but he gave them in such a smug way as to infuriate, rather than satisfy his audience.

The moderator of the town hall confronted Davis with a quotation from Willie Brown, mayor of San Francisco, who is supporting Davis in the recall. “He doesn’t make friends,” Brown said of Davis. “I don’t know a lot of people who want to have dinner with Gray.”

Davis responded by saying - - somewhat off the subject - - that “My wife, Sharon, brought me back to God.”

Then, to the subject, Davis said: “Am I Bill Clinton? No, I’m not. I grew up in the Fifties when they taught you to keep feelings to yourself. Now we’re in a world of Oprah and Jerry Springer.”

Which may actually go to the heart of Davis’ problem: Unlike his political hero, Bill Clinton, he cannot share his inner feelings (real or manufactured) with the public in an effort to bond with them.

And yet, it must be kept in mind, that Davis did win election and re-election to the governorship. And while he did it by vilifying his opponents - - hard to do in a recall when essentially his chief opponent is himself - - several million people in this state have cast votes for Gray Davis.

Will they go back to the polls on Oct. 7 and cast a vote to save him?

One poll has the recall election close, but another has Davis losing overwhelmingly. And the possibility of actually being thrown out of office seems finally to have gotten through to him.

“I’m like a baseball manager,” Davis said. “If the team loses, you take the blame and sometimes you have to say goodbye.”

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 25, 2003

WASHINGTON - - When last heard from, Karla W. Corcoran was being strung up over at the Postal Service.

I don’t mean she was actually hanged - - though that might not have been a bad idea. Up until last week, Corcoran was the Postal Service’s inspector general and was paid $142,500 a year to root out waste and corruption.

She claims she found plenty of both and also claims to have identified $2.2 billion in potential savings during her term in office.

And had that been all she did, she might still be the inspector general today. But Corcoran was forced to retire last week after a federal investigation found she had abused her authority and wasted public funds.

Where did Corcoran, who was the first inspector general in the Postal Service’s history, go wrong? Well, she liked to do really dumb things.

One of the biggest really dumb things she liked were “motivational conferences” where people gather to do exceptionally dumb things under the guise of being really, really smart.

Corcoran held three such conferences at Washington, D.C. hotels and spent $1 million on each of them. As I wrote in May, at one conference postal employees took part in activities that included "making tents out of newspapers, donning cat masks and hoisting Corcoran on a web of ropes."

According to ABC News, other activities by postal employees included the building of sand castles and gingerbread houses. "On other occasions they dressed up as the Village People or wore cat costumes," according to the network.

The Postal Service, which is about $12 billion in debt, could apparently afford these things. Heck, it was the Inspector General spending money on them!

Some members of Congress took a dim view of these activities, however. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., said, "When people buy postage stamps they expect that money to be used to move the mail, not to be wasted on [exercises] that have employees dressed in animal costumes."

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., joined Dorgan in a letter that said, "Corcoran seems to have been too busy wasting her own agency's resources to have been much of a watchdog for the Postal Service."

Corcoran denied any wrong-doing and said her critics had their facts wrong. She said she had a "values-oriented" managerial approach, which was symbolized by the acronym "TLC3," and stood for "teamwork, leadership, creativity, communication and conceptualization." That is what all the gingerbread houses, cat masks, and Village People stuff were about.

"One of the things we had to do was a puzzle where you had to take the 'TLC3' rocket to the 'Values Galaxy," one former employee said. "People were frustrated. They couldn't get their work done."

Said Corcoran: "I truly believe government needs more people like me. They need people who are willing to try things differently."

An investigation by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency did not agree there should be more Karla Corcorans in the federal government. And a few weeks ago, the council’s integrity committee recommended that “the most severe administrative sanctions available be taken against Ms. Corcoran.”

In an interview with the Post, Corcoran “used an expletive to characterize the findings of the council’s 274-page report and said she had been made a scapegoat.”

“They did not employ people that were familiar with postal operations,” she said.

But I am not sure that is a fair criticism. The council may have employed people who were familiar with making tents out of newspapers, donning cat masks and hoisting people around on ropes. Other people were probably experts on sand castles, gingerbread houses, dressing up as the Village People or wearing cat costumes.

There are apparently plenty of people like this in the federal government.

In any case, the council found that Corcoran “followed a pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct…used questionable judgment in areas within her discretion, extravagantly expended USPS funds, and engaged in personnel practices which were either questionable or not in accord with USPS policy.”

As I said, Corcoran has now retired, and has been replaced with David C. Williams, who has served as inspector general at the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury, the Social Security Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

No word yet on whether he prefers sand castles or gingerbread.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 20, 2003

WASHINGTON - - Even though the number of Democrats running for president is already large, there are those who believe nine is not enough.

They believe that none has the stature to unify the party and defeat George W. Bush. And they are looking for someone else, a White Knight, to ride to the rescue.

The three White Knights mentioned most often are Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and retired Army General Wesley Clark.

In a previous column I dealt with Al Gore - - I believe more Democrats want him to stay out of the race than get in - - and in this one I’ll deal with Clinton and Clark.

Hillary Clinton is one of the few political celebrities the Democrats have. Her recent book tour, which some thought would fall as flat Al Gore’s did in 2002, has been a stunning success and she has reportedly sold more than one million books, which is a whole lot.

She is in her first term as the junior senator from New York (though often overshadows the state’s senior senator, Charles Schumer) and is up for re-election in 2006.

Her popularity in New York remains high and, as “The Almanac of American Politics 2004” points out, New Yorkers have never defeated an incumbent Democratic senator.

All this would argue for a presidential run in 2008, however, not 2004.

If she runs for president in 2004, she enters the race late and would be the object of a considerable amount of resentment from those who believe she would be using her star power to muscle aside candidates who have been running for more than six months.

Though her fundraising abilities are formidable and she has a very savvy political adviser in her husband, Bill Clinton, could she really unseat an incumbent president even if she got the nomination?

And even if she believes she has a reasonable chance of gaining the presidency in 2004, wouldn’t her chances in 2008 be better?

In 2008, Hillary presumably will be in her second term as senator, have years not months to plot out her presidential campaign and raise funds, and may be facing no incumbent president.

True, the risk exists that if she sits out 2004, a Democrat may win, making it difficult (though not impossible) for her to run in 2008. But that is a risk any thinking candidate would take.

So what is the real argument for Hillary to run in 2004? To save the party!

But she is only 55 and has plenty of time to save the party and further her own career in the process.

Chances of Hillary running this time around? Forgedaboutit.

Which brings us to Wesley Clark, who is largely a blank slate, which can be an advantage.

We know that he is from Arkansas, was NATO Supreme Commander from 1997 to 2000 and retired with the rank of four star general. He graduated first in his class at West Point and is a Rhodes Scholar. He fought in Vietnam and has a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and a Purple Heart. He is currently chairman and CEO of his own consulting firm.

His big issue is national security. He believes the Iraq war was not justified and has made the United States less secure.

If he runs, it could be troublesome for Sen. John Kerry, who is currently the only combat veteran in the Democratic field and talks about it a lot, and for Howard Dean, whose position on the war is similar to Clark’s, but Dean lacks Clark’s military credentials. Also, those candidates who are basing their campaigns on their ability to carry southern states - - John Edwards of North Carolina and Bob Graham of Florida - - might also lose voters to southerner Clark.

On the other hand, Clark has never run for office, let alone the presidency, would be starting out several million dollars behind the front runners, and would need to assemble a good staff very quickly. (The process of entering all those Democratic primaries and caucuses is a very complicated one.)

He will also have to demonstrate he is more than a one-issue candidate and can win the support of important Democratic constituencies like labor, minorities, women, etc. (Remember: He has to win the nomination before he can win the presidency.)

Though the task is daunting, Clark sounds like he may be announcing his candidacy in the next few weeks. On CNN, Clark said recently he has found “an enormous hunger for leadership” as he travels around the country.

Translation: This hunger is not being satisfied by either George Bush or the nine Democrats currently running.

Odds of Clark actually running for president? Better than 50-50.

Odds of him actually winning the nomination? A lot longer than that.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 18, 3003

WASHINGTON - - The Democrats are now entering into their White Knight phase, which, like everything else about the 2004 presidential election, is coming early.

Usually just before or just after the first primaries, a number of people in the party throw up their hands, tear their hair, and gnash their teeth (yes, you can do all three) over the fact that none of the announced Democrats is any good, none has sufficient stature, and none can beat the Republican front-runner.

What is needed, they decide, is a real leader, unsullied by base politics, who can ride to the rescue of the party.

(This rarely takes place for the very good reason that if such a person actually existed, he or she would be running already. Also, genuine “drafts” of candidates barely exist in modern presidential campaigning because the need for dollars is so great and the rules for entering all the primaries so complicated, that an early start and advance planning is usually required.)

But this time, the Democrats have two fears. First, that months of campaigning among the nine declared candidates has not really produced someone of sufficient standing to beat George Bush. In other words, typical White Knight syndrome.

There other fear, however, is that Howard Dean, aided and abetted by a campaign calendar that begins with two quirky states, Iowa and New Hampshire, which he could win, will run away with the nomination, but will doom the party to defeat in the fall as Bush portrays Dean as a squishy-soft liberal who will not defend this country in time of peril.

So who are the White Knights that will save the party from itself? Three names keep coming up: Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark. Today, I’ll deal with Al Gore and write about the others in upcoming columns.

Yes, it’s true, there is an actual “Draft Gore” movement with a website and offices and everything. And, on the surface, it makes some sense:

Gore was the party’s nominee in 2000; he beat George Bush by half a million popular votes and garnered more votes than any presidential candidate in history. He lost Florida and the election through a controversial Supreme Court ruling, but withdrew with a certain amount of grace.

With the stature and experience he has, the reasoning goes, he could enter the process late, assemble a staff, attract sufficient money, and sweep through the primaries. He obviously knows how to campaign against George Bush; Gore won’t make the same mistakes twice (no more “sighs and lies” this time around) and has a better chance of winning than any declared Democrat.

There is only one trouble with this Gore-rides-to-the-rescue-scenario: Not that many people actually want him to run. A little of Al Gore goes a long way and we’ve all had a little of Al Gore.

While many Democrats are outraged that Florida was “stolen” from them, I’ve also heard a lot of outrage from Democrats that Gore couldn’t even manage to win his home state (which would have made him president) and that he blew an election he easily should have won.

Further, Gore’s road show in late 2002, which many thought would be the beginning of his presidential campaign, turned out to be just another (unsuccessful) book tour and left a lingering bad taste.

So why does Gore’s name continue to come up? One reason is that Gore ordered up some limelight a few weeks ago when he gave a speech in New York excoriating President Bush over the invasion of Iraq, charging him with a pattern of deception and questioning his “basic honesty.”

So is this Al Gore’s way of saying he wants to run for president? No, it is Al Gore’s way of saying that he, and not just Bill Clinton, should be an elder statesman of the party. He wants to be listened to; he wants to count. He wants what Clinton seems to get effortlessly: respect

Gore and Clinton have been in competition for years. (It should not be forgotten that Gore ran for president in 1988, four years before Clinton did.) And even though Gore was Clinton’s vice president, Gore does not feel junior to him, but does feel that people over-rate Clinton and under-rate him.

So when Clinton went on “Larry King Live” some weeks ago and said people should cut President Bush some slack over Iraq, that all president’s make mistakes and that Democrats should concentrate on the present and not the past, Gore saw an opportunity to gain some ground by giving a speech in direct opposition.

Gore’s big problem, however, is that the competition that is driving his life - - Gore vs. Clinton - - is a competition that almost nobody cares about but him.

Chances of Gore riding to the rescue of the Democrats in 2004? Pretty close to zero.

If the Democrats really do want a White Knight, they will have to keep searching. Hillary, Wesley, do you hear your destiny calling?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 13, 2003

WASHINGTON - - Q: What is wrong with the people in California?
A: They suffer from an excess of democracy.

Q: What’s wrong with democracy?
A: Nothing. It’s a great system. But our system is one of representative government, in which elected officials can serve us free from the fears of mob rule or the passions of the moment.

Q: Don’t they have that in California?
A: Barely. In California the voters can pass ballot initiatives that tie the hands of their lawmakers, for instance, which is part of the reason the state is now in a fiscal crisis.

Q: You’re angry about the recall, I can tell.
A: The recall is the political equivalent of Instant Messaging. Some voters want action - - now! No matter what. They just re-elected Gray Davis as governor nine months ago, but their recall system allows them to throw him out of office even though he has committed no high crime or misdemeanor.

Q: If they don’t like the guy, why shouldn’t they be able to get rid of him whenever they want?
A: Government is tougher than it looks. And politicians play to the crowd enough as it is. In the future, do we really want gutless governors who will never risk angering the public for fear of a recall? Even though “throwing the bums out” whenever we’d like might make us feel good, it does not necessarily solve problems.

Q: Is Gray Davis doomed? The polls say he is.
A: It looks very bad for Davis, but don’t trust the polls too much. As ABC News’ “The Note” first pointed out, the polls are unreliable because nobody can come up with a sensible turn-out model. In other words, this recall election is so unusual, that nobody knows who is going to show up to vote or in what numbers.

Q: What can save Gray Davis?
A: Two things: First, he has to make the election about something other than Gray Davis. He is so personally unpopular that few people will go to the polls to save him. But if Davis can make this election about the schoolchildren of California, the environment of California, the taxpayers of California, etc., he might persuade some people to vote for him to save them.

Q: What’s the other thing?
A: Proposition 54. It’s on the same ballot as the recall. It’s an anti-affirmative action initiative, it will bring minorities and Democrats to the polls to vote against it and that could boost the retain-Davis vote. But his staying in office is still a long shot.

Q: Will the Clintons help him?
A: Well, we know that Bill Clinton has been giving Davis advice and Hillary Clinton, like most Democrats, is also supporting him. But will they actually go to California and campaign standing next to him? Maybe not.

Q: Why?
A: A rule from Chicago politics: “Never back no losers.” If, in September, it looks like Davis is going down, why should Bill Clinton hitch his legacy and Hillary Clinton hitch her popularity, which is soaring, to the lead balloon that is Gray Davis?

Q: So you think Arnold Schwarzenegger has got this thing wrapped up?
A: Maybe. He is certainly getting more attention than any gubernatorial candidate in California history, but that also means he might get more scrutiny.

Q: Won’t he be able to take it?
A: We don’t know. He’s never taken a punch before. Not a political punch. And we don’t know how he will react. Nor do we know if he really has an understanding of the issues facing Californians.

Q: Some people say he is pretty bright.
A: Some people do say that. But it is time for Schwarzenegger to show it. He doesn’t have to demonstrate he is a genius, but he has to demonstrate he can do more than make jokes about how running for governor is “the most difficult decision I have made since I got a bikini wax in 1978."

Q: Won’t President Bush campaign with Schwarzenegger?
A: Perhaps, but I doubt it. President Bush said he thought Schwarzenegger would make “a good governor,” but Bush might leave it at that. In fact, I hear the White House is not that happy with the recall election.

Q: Why?
A: Figure it out: No governor is going to be able to solve California’s problems between now and November, 2004. So which would Bush rather have: Californians angry with a Democratic governor or Californians angry with a Republican governor?

Q: But if Arnold wins, wouldn’t that put California “in play” for Bush in the presidential election?
A: Probably not.

Q: Really?
A: Look, Bush lost California by 12 percentage points in 2000, which is a landslide loss. Having a Republican governor, especially one elected under the unusual circumstances of a recall, would hardly make up that margin, even for an incumbent president. And consider: Bush had popular, powerful Republican governors working very hard for him in Pennsylvania and Michigan in 2000 and Bush lost both those states. Governors can help, but the candidate still wins or loses the state on his own. (With the exception of Florida, which is another story.)

Q: Are you angry with Californians for turning this election into a circus?
A: Not a bit. Californians should elect whomever they want. But they should also remember what Adlai Stevenson said: “Your public servants serve you right.”

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 11, 2003

Chicago—All nine Democratic presidential candidates are gathering down at Navy Pier, the biggest names in the American labor movement are over at the Drake Hotel and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley has other plans.

“I’ll be watching the White Sox,” Daley says.

So no drop-by to let the candidates kiss his ring? No appearance to let labor leaders kiss his…mistletoe?

“The Sox are playing Kansas City,” Daley says in a tone that suggests that if you don’t get that, you just don’t get him.

With a large fish tank behind him where blue and yellow tangs and blue damsels circle and dart, Daley sits at a paper-strewn conference table in his fifth-floor working office at City Hall. He has no desk. There is a desk in his ceremonial office next door, but that is his father’s desk and Daley uses it only
when dignitaries visit.

In his fifth term, Daley is the second-longest serving mayor in the city’s
history, ranking just behind his late father, Richard J. Daley. Though
the current Daley was originally dismissed as a “dese-dem-and-doser,”
who would quickly be swamped by racial divisions, failing schools and rising crime, he now presides over one of the few cities in the nation where
the population has grown, median household income has gone up and home own
ership in the city is increasing at a faster rate than in the suburbs.

Daley turns his chair away from the conference table and
talks about how in a time of scant resources he must plan very
far in advance and how neighborhoods have to trust him when
he promises them a “new school in 2020 and a new library
in 2030.”

When I suggest that he may still be mayor in 2030,
he throws back his head and lets loose a series of booming
laughs. But, gee, he’d be only 88.

Though not the king-maker his father was - - the rules of the game have been changed and today primary elections, not party bosses, pick presidential nominees - - Daley is a force to be reckoned with in American politics.

Illinois almost always picks winners in presidential elections, though in 2000 George Bush became the first Republican in history to win the presidency without winning Illinois. (He had a little help from the Supreme Court.)

Daley says all the Democratic candidates have come to see
him except Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich (maybe they afraid he wouldn’t take their calls), and though Daley will not endorse in the primaries, he will work for the party’s nominee.

He will not watch the nine Democrats debate at the AFL-CIO forum at Navy Pier this evening (the White Sox will beat Kansas City 5-4 to Daley’s delight; he grew up a few blocks from where the Sox play), but there is no need.

Since most of these presidential forums have been sponsored by Democratic special interest groups - - labor, minorities, gays and lesbians, etc. - - they have become pander-fests, with the candidates elbowing each other to see how much they can promise how fast.

But even this is getting harder as the special interest groups (though not
necessarily the candidates) are growing more sophisticated. Andrew
Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, the
largest union in the nation, is in Chicago to watch and listen to the
candidates, but he is looking for more than pander and promises.

“We want to try to take a look at candidates in a more vi­
brant forum than lining them up in a row on stage,” he says. “So we found a group of young, struggling, independent film-makers, gave them a
budget and asked them to spend a day with the candidates and try to make a film to express who this person really is.”

In September, the films will be shown at a meeting of the union’s political activists. Stern specifically told the film-makers that he was not interested in the policy positions of the candidates. (He already
knows them.)

“We want to know what makes them tick,” he says. “Who are they? What values do they hold? Can they connect with people? These days, people want to know who their presidents really are.”

Toward that end, Stern instructed the film-makers to capture “the soul” of each candidate.

nd there better be at least one thing lurking in those souls, Mayor Daley says: Passion. “It can’t be just a job to you,” he says. “It can’t be just bureaucratic. If it is, people sense that.”

But can George W. Bush be defeated by any Democrat?

“Without passion, anybody can be defeated,” Daley says. “Even myself.”

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 6, 2003

CHICAGO - - I decided to do something really different at the recent Democratic debate sponsored by the AFL-CIO here: I decided to actually watch the debate in person.

This has fallen so far out of fashion that at many debates it is no longer possible. Reporters, who fly hundreds or thousands of miles to get to the event, go into little press rooms and watch the debates on TV monitors. The picture they see is the same picture that people see at home.

Often, there are no seats for the press in the debate hall and, frankly, few reporters want them. The press room has become our electronic womb. It has everything we need: power lines, phone lines and (sometimes) food.

We hook up our laptops and we settle back in front of the tube.

In fairness, to a reporter on a tight deadline staying in the press room is a great advantage.

But most reporters stay in the press room even when they don’t have to. In fact, some of them fly thousands of miles and never leave their hotel rooms.

Because as long as you can see the same picture of the debate on any TV, what really is the advantage of the press room? Phone companies charge rapacious fees for phone lines in most press rooms, so why not just stay in your hotel room and pay the semi-rapacious phone fees there?

In fact, why fly to the event at all? Why not just stay home? Several reasons: If you stay home, you can’t put a dateline on your story (unless you are Jayson Blair, in which case you can claim you watched the debate from Saturn). If you stay home, you don’t get airline frequent flyer miles, hotel frequent guest miles or expense account meals.

But most of all if you stay home you miss the entire summer camp atmosphere that is a presidential campaign.

OK, so we’ve established you’ve got actually to go to the event. But why shlep out to the press room? Why not stay in your nice mixed-nuts-are-only-$18-from-room-service hotel room?

The death factor. The following conversation actually took place next to me in Chicago as two reporters argued as to whether it was necessary to actually go out to Navy Pier to watch the debate.

First Reporter: “I’m not paying $250 for a phone line from the press room and I hear the press room is going to be really crowded anyway.”

Second Reporter: “What if somebody shoots one of them?”

First Reporter: (shocked) “What?”

Second Reporter: “If one of them gets shot, what are you going to tell your desk?”

This is not a post-Sept. 11 phenomenon. Reporters have worried about this forever. I know a reporter who, in 1968, left Robert Kennedy’s last rally early so he could get some sleep. He was awakened in his hotel room by a frantic editor saying the wires were moving stories about Kennedy being shot and where was his story?

So we tend to show up at the events. But do we need to actually see them in the flesh or can we cover them in vitro, under the glass of the TV screen?

As it turns out, the AFL-CIO made it easy to see the debate in real life. There were press seats in the hall and the hall was only a few yards from the press room. So I watched some of the debate live and some on TV.

What were the differences? Audience reaction is one big difference. Live, in the hall, you can hear and see the boos, cheers, hisses and applause. On TV, since the audience does not have microphones in it, the reaction is muted or absent. Is this important? Well, the candidates are in the hall, too, and they react to the audience, so it can make a difference.

Second big difference: Your eye is a much better camera than a TV lens. It can take in much more. (Your eyes are also on a convenient swiveling device called a head.) You can take in all the candidates at once, instead of being at the mercy of the person in the control room selecting shots. This is especially valuable when watching one candidate react to another, which is often absent from TV.

By watching in the hall, I learned for instance that Howard Dean does not watch the other candidates while they are speaking. He is very busy with his own notes, preparing for his turn to speak.

I also learned the John Kerry’s voice problems are continuing. His voice was very weak at the South Carolina debate and it hurt him. In Chicago, I was in the hall and could barely hear him. I figured it might just be bad sound in the hall. So I went back to the press room and it was hard to hear him on TV, too. Kerry really is going to have to rest his voice before these big debates: It is hard to sound forceful if your voice is weak.

My key observation came after TV had gone off the air, however. I wondered if Dean would seek out Joe Lieberman, who had spent this last week questioning Dean’s judgment, resolve and patriotism.

Dean did so immediately. He very swiftly and very deliberately walked the length of the stage to Lieberman and shook Lieberman’s hand forcefully as if to say, “When I’m president, Joe, I’ll consider you for ambassador to Liechtenstein.”

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 4, 2003

BURLINGTON, VT - - Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is definitely the Flavor of the Week. He is on the covers of the newsmagazines, and on “Larry King Live” and the “Today” show. I sat down with him recently over lunch in a small restaurant near his campaign headquarters. (He had a cup of soup and an oatmeal cookie, which he admitted was not the most nutritious lunch an internist could order. I had a Coke to make him feel better.)

ME: You went to Yale from 1967-71. What were you like during that time?
DEAN: I had long hair. My drug of choice was beer. I didn't generally engage in an excessive lifestyle. I mean, you know, I dabbled in a little of this and a little of that. We did some
heavy-duty partying, but I didn't do anything outrageous.

ME: Did you ever break the law?
DEAN: I'm not going to answer that.

ME: Were you ever arrested for drunk driving?
DEAN: No. Never arrested for anything.

ME: You were a political science major. Did you envision a career in politics?
DEAN: I wrote a paper for a sociology course in my freshman year that said when I was 40 I'd be in my third term in Congress - - so obviously I must have done some thinking about it. But I probably became pretty disillusioned with government because of the conduct of President Johnson and President Nixon over the Vietnam war so I thought that the way to save the world was one life at a time.

ME: After you graduated, you became a ski bum in Colorado, then went to work on Wall Street. How did you get into medicine?
DEAN: I decided to seriously figure out whether I really could be a doctor. So I went to work as a volunteer once a week at night at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York. Mostly, I wanted to see if I could deal with the blood and gore without passing out. And for the most part I did.

ME: What did you like best during your medical training?
DEAN: The three things I liked the best were psychiatry, surgery, and medicine. I decided against surgery, which I love, because I didn't want to be married to the hospital. And I decided against psychiatry, because I didn't think I could listen to everybody's problems eight hours a day. Which, of course, is what I do now. Except it's 13 hours a day.

ME: During the debate in Vermont on civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, which you supported, did you have to wear a bulletproof vest?
DEAN: Sometimes.

ME: Would gun control laws in Vermont have made that unnecessary?
DEAN: No, because in Vermont gun control laws would have no effect whatsoever.
They certainly don't seem to have much effect in New York. Although my position is New
Yorkers can have as much (gun control) as they want.

ME: You were once a supporter of Bill Clinton and stayed over in the Lincoln Bedroom in 1995 with your wife. What do you think of Clinton now?
DEAN: I still think that Bill Clinton has more talent in his little finger than anybody else in America and really, I think, Bill Clinton is the most politically talented president of anybody since FDR .

ME: What about Hillary?
DEAN: Hillary was the only person I went to talk to before I decided I was going run for
president. I just wanted to make sure she wasn't going to run.

ME: What accounts for President Bush's current popularity?
DEAN: I think people like the president. I like the president.

ME: You do?
DEAN: Yeah, I do. He's an engaging person, but I think for some reason he's been captured by the neo-conservatives around him.