Yankees again!

So it's the Yankees and Marlins in the World Series. I couldn't help but root for the Yankees the other night, even though I kept telling myself I should be for the Red Sox. I love Boston - the city - and wouldn't mind seeing the Red Sox win some day - but I've been a Yankees fan since 1998 and even though they dumped my favorite player - Chuck Knoblauch - I'm still too familiar with the team not to empathize with them.
I didn't want to see Roger Clemen's final game be one where he was knocked out in the 4th inning.
Back in 98-99-00 the Yankees had a solid team player in almost every position. The only weak point was left field where they couldn't make up their mind and kept swapping out players - Ricky Ledee, Chad Curtis, Shane Spencer - and then Knoblauch after his arm gave out.
Today, they have adequately filled the Left Field slot with Hideki Matsui - but now they have a weak spot in Right Field where they have yet to find a solid replacement for Paul O'Neill. And I have to admit that Soriano has filled in well at second base in place of Knobby. But now they are weak at third base where no one has been able to step up and fill the shoes left by Scott Brosius (Aaron Boone's 11th inning home-run last night aside). And I also think they are weaker at first base for having traded away Tino Martinez to make room for the unimpressive Nick Johnson.
But the Yankees still have super stars like Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada in the linup and they have added Jason Giambi to that list as well. And their pitching rotation is still first rate with Clemens, Andy Pettite, David Wells, Mike Mussina and Mario Rivera in the bullpen.
Still, I won't be surpised if the Yankees fumble in this Series and lose to the young Marlins team. There still maybe something to the Knoblauch curse I noted in the previous post. We shall see.

The Knoblauch Curse

Everybody is paying a lot of attention to the “Curse of the Bambino” in Boston - which has kept the Red Sox from winning the World Series since trading away Babe Ruth - and the unnamed curse that vexes the Chicago Cubs who have not even won a pennant much less a World Series since the end of WWII.

But no one is paying attention to another curse involving the New York Yankees that I think might have an impact this year. I call it the Knoblauch Curse after the Yankees’ former second baseman and leadoff hitter Chuck Knoblauch who faded away into free agent obscurity earlier this year after having a dismal final season with the Kansas City Royals. Knoblauch, a Texas A&M grad who went to my wife’s high school in Houston, was the Rookie of the Year in 1991 when he helped the Minnesota Twins win the World Series that year.

The Yankees have not won a World Series since they decided to bench Knoblauch during the 2001 Series against the Diamondbacks. They began their impressive streak of World Series appearances and back-to-back-to-back victories in 1998 shortly after acquiring Knoblauch from the Twins. But sometime between 2000 and 2001, Knoblauch began experiencing throwing problems and the Yankees were forced to shift him from second base to left field. His hitting started to suffer as well and by the time the playoffs came around they were mostly playing Knobby off the bench. As a result, the Yankees came up short of their fourth WS victory in 2001 and the next year, after they traded Knoblauch to the Royals, failed to make it out of the playoffs.

Maybe this year will be different and the Knoblauch Curse will be shortlived. But if the Red Sox come back and/or the Cubs/Marlins pull off a World Series victory, I will know the real reason.

Where do I sign up?

The National Rifle Association has put together a helpful list of "National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies"

Here is just a sampling of some of the groups on the NRA hit list:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Trauma Society
National Association of Community Health Centers
Children's Defense Fund
National Association of Children's Hospitals

No big surprise that there would be a lot of medical and health groups on the list.

So what exactly does the NRA hope to accomplish by compiling this list? Are they urging their members to try and undermine these organizations? To work against them?

This is actually kind of scary when you consider how many people still blindly support the NRA long after it has been taken over by extremist radicals. Not unlike the Texas Republican Party, the NRA today is controlled by a tight-knit group of hardliners who see any reasonable regulation of gun ownership as an affront to the Second Amendment.

The reason that they can come up with a list like this in the first place is because they have defined "anti-gun policies" to such an extreme degree that anyone who objects to the unregulated sale of assault rifles, cop-killer bullets and plastic guns - is included.

Update

To illustrate my point that the NRA is currently controlled by dangerous radicals, here is a quote from a speech by NRA President Wayne LaPierre at the 2002 NRA Convention where he makes it clear how he feels about people who disagree with his extreme views on gun proliferation.

"If you consider the Constitution less relevant, if you ignore or distort the Second Amendment, if you conspire to make lawful firearms less accessible to lawful citizens, if you infiltrate school boards and churches and legislatures and foundations to advance an anti-freedom agenda of any kind - the fact that you were born on American soil won't mask the fact that you're an enemy of freedom and a political terrorist."

I guess that explains why the NRA would want to keep such a list - so they can keep track of all these "enemies of freedom and political terrorists."

Recuperating

Had my wisdom teeth removed on Friday so I spent most of the weekend sitting around the house recuperating and had a chance to catch up on some movie watching.
Here are some quick reviews of the films I saw:

Bend It Like Beckham - A very enjoyable film that was about what I expected after reading all the rave reviews. Kind of sad though to see the film now after the U.S. Women's Pro Soccer League has gone bankrupt. The film is about two British girls who get the chance to come to America to play pro soccer.

The Italian Job - A good crime caper film with some decent action sequences. I like movies where the protagonists are able to pull off a scam without resorting to killing and shooting people.

Down With Love - Much better than I expected. A very clever romantic comedy with some hilarious dialogue. They did a great job recreating the feel of a 1963-era movie.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea - Disney's classic live-action film from 1953 with Kirk Douglas, James Mason and Peter Lorre. Had never seen the film before that I can remember and really loved it. Still haven't seen all the extra features on the 2-disc set.

What the Calif. recall election was really all about

Why would so many Republicans fall in behind Arnold Schwarzenegger, a movie actor with no experience who is somewhere to the left of Joe Lieberman on the political spectrum, when they had a perfectly good conservative candidate like Tom McClintock standing in the wings? That is the question that has vexed many right-wing radio talkers and bloggers these past few weeks.

Even when Arnold was being exposed as a serial groper with enough accusations of sexual misconduct to make even Bill Clinton blush - Republicans stood by him, unwavering in their support.

The reason is quite simple really and it was clearly evidenced by the results of Tuesday's recall election. Arnold has the kind of star-power that every Republican operative in the country would love to tap into. Unless California is falling into the ocean next year, you can bet that Arnold will be the No. 1 invitee to appear at Republican fundraisers and to speak on behalf of Republican candidates at their campaign rallies.
And the topper will be when Arnold gives the nominating speech for George Bush at next year's Republican National Convention.

That was the GOP's goal in this race. They don't really care about what happens to California. Anything that goes wrong from this point forward will just be blamed on the Democrats who still control the state legislature. The real point was to annoint the newest Republican superstar: "Conan the Campaigner" coming soon to a political rally near you!

Conservative writers block?

Woo Hoo! This is a nice change - Bestseller list dominated by liberals

"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" by Al Franken.
"The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception" by David Corn
"Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" by Joe Conason
"The Great Unraveling," by Paul Krugman
"Bushwhacked" by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.
and soon to unseat the latest Bill O'Reilly screed for the No. 1 spot is Michael Moore's new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?"

I guess it is one of the few advantages of being out of power - plenty of time to sit back and write books critical of those who are in charge.

By the way, I will get to see Molly Ivins in person tomorrow at the Barnes & Noble on DeZavala where I plan to buy her book and get it autographed.

The Clinton Test

Josh Marshall has a good rule of thumb that I would like to see more bloggers taking up. He calls it the Clinton Test.


"When I come across something fishy from the Bush administration, I try to use what I call the Clinton Test to keep myself honest and steer me right. As I’ve noted before in these pages, the Clinton Test is quite simply, how would I react to situation X if it was Clinton --- someone I supported --- rather than Bush --- someone I oppose. It’s a good rule of thumb because seeing a given action through the prism of someone whose motives you are inclined to view favorably is a good check on unwarranted suspicions."

Of course, some conservatives already have their own version of The Clinton Test as Atrios points out.

"We should compare Partisan Liberal Journalist Josh Marshall's "Clinton Test" with Partisan Conservative Journalist Chris Caldwell's "Clinton Test:"


CALDWELL: Well, yes, one of my colleagues likes to say, "The Golden Rule is that all rumors about the Clintons are true". But I think ...
KURTZ: That's quite a journalistic standard.

Liberals electing Republicans, and vice versa

With California on the verge of installing a Republican governor once again, I’m reminded of the peculiar habit of states that traditionally vote a certain way electing governors from the opposite party.

Assuming that The Groper pulls off his electoral coup tomorrow, California will join such other “liberal” states with Republican governors as: Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and even Hawaii.

On other hand, there are many “conservative” states that typically vote Republican that have elected Democratic governors of late. They include:
Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wyoming.

Cubs win!

I got to see a Cubs game at Wrigley Field with my parents some time in the early '70s when I was about 8. My Dad was stationed at Grissom AFB in Indiana and we went mainly to see the hapless Astros play. All I remember is that the Cubs won and Billy Williams hit a home run.
So I'm glad to see the Cubs finally make it back to the Post-season for the first time since 1908. I'll be rooting for them to knock off the Florida Marlins and make it to the World Series where I'm guessing they would end up facing the Yankees.

I haven't paid much attention to the Marlins this year, but it looks like Pudge Rodriguez nearly single-handedly helped them to knock off the Giants. I still can't believe the Rangers let Pudge go. It figures that they end up in the last place while Pudge takes his new team to the Playoffs. It reminds me of the idiot owners of the Cinncinnati Reds in the late-70s and early-80s when they decided to break up the Big Red Machine and started trading off everyone except Johnny Bench. They even let Sparky Anderson go and Sparky responded by taking the Detroit Tigers to the World Series while the Reds wallowed in last place.

I'll be rooting for the Red Sox to make a miracle comeback against the A's tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath.

Coming up empty

From the Washington Post:


“After searching for nearly six months, U.S. forces and CIA experts have found no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq and have determined that Iraq's nuclear program was in only "the very most rudimentary" state, the Bush administration's chief investigator formally told Congress yesterday.”

Six months is twice as long as Bush allowed the U.N. inspectors to have before he rushed headlong into this war. But Bush wants to give this group an additonal six months and $600 million to continue this snipe hunt.
Meanwhile our soldiers are continuing to be shot at and killed at an alarming rate - nearly two a day - and U.S. taxpayers are being asked to foot an additional $87 billion tab for “reconstruction” in addition to nearly that much that has already been spent.

“Before the war, the administration said Iraq had a well-developed nuclear program that presented a threat to the United States.”

And shortly after the war Bush claimed that these trailers were evidence that Iraq had a mobile bio-weapons lab. Proof of WMDs, he claimed at the time. That partly explains why so many people seem to believe that we have already found WMDs in Iraq - especially folks who get their information from Fox News.

Bad day for Dittoheads

First the news that Rush Limbaugh has resigned his sports commentary job at ESPN over racially charged comments he made about Eagles QB Donovan McNabb.

And now this...

"Talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh is being investigated for allegedly buying thousands of addictive painkillers from a black-market drug ring.
The moralizing motormouth was turned in by his former housekeeper - who says she was Limbaugh's pill supplier for four years."


"... The drugs Rush Limbaugh is accused of abusing are legal only with a doctor's prescription. All are habit-forming.

* Hydrocodone

Anti-cough agent and painkiller similar to morphine. Side effects include anxiety, poor mental performance..."

I think this really explains a lot.

Scandal summary

The Washington Post has an editorial today that helpfully summarizes the CIA leak scandal that is currently haunting the Bush administration for anyone who is still not up to speed on the topic.

One thing the editorial makes clear is that the case actually involves two leaks - the first being the one that outed Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife as a covert CIA operative and the second being a White House whistleblower who ratted on the ones who did the inital leaking.

"What sets this case apart is that it was a Bush administration official who turned (anonymously) on other Bush administration comrades. We know this because on Sunday Post writers Mike Allen and Dana Priest reported that "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." The senior Bush administration official told The Post, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." Asked about the motive for disclosing the behavior of other administration officials, the purported whistleblower said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

I would be interested to know which of the two sets of leakers Bush is more interested in plugging up at this point.

The Post also makes clear that the story is not about to go away any time soon.

"The expanding probe, which promptly shifted to a full investigation after an initial review..."

In other words, we are already well beyond the point where this could all be explained away as no big deal. If, as some conservative bloggers have tried to argue, Valerie Plame was not an undercover agent but just an analyst and therefore no crime was committed by publicizing her name - then that would have been found out during the initial review period.

I can accept that the Justice Department will need some time to conduct a thorough investigation, but if it begins to appear that they are dragging their feet - as appears to be the case with the Enron probe - then expect lots more carping from Bush critics that an independent counsel be appointed. They can't just sit on this scandal and hope that people forget about it until after Bush is safely re-elected to a second term.

Time to bring back the independent counsel

I turn now to my favorite source for hard-hitting news - The Wall Street Journal (9/29/03 pgs. A3-A7):

"The investigation could prove explosive no matter how it unfolds, because the probe will be up to the administration's own Justice Department to investigate the allegations. If charges are brought against the source of the leak, it could indicate that the administration sought to silence critics of its decision to go to war. If no charges are filed, questions could arise as to whether the department pursued the case aggresively, and lead to calls for an independent inquiry."

My conservative friends would not tolerate Janet Reno investigating Bill Clinton, so they can hardly expect me to accept that John Ashcroft will be adequate in investigating this scandal.

My only concern though is one of fairness (and balance). Who could we select as an independent counsel who would be as rabidly partisan in conducting this investigation of the Bush administration as Ken Starr was in investigating the Clinton administration?
Suggestions are welcome. Maybe Alan Dershowitz? Michael Moore?

A vengeful White House

Was the Bush White House being vengeful when it outed Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA agent?
This issue which is now under investigation has the potential to be a bigger scandal than anything that ever occurred during the 8 years that Clinton was in office.

But with Bush, it is becoming difficult to pick out the biggest scandal.
Is it Bush's ties to Ken Lay and Enron? Is it the huge tax cuts for the wealthy that were supposed to jumpstart our economy and instead have drained our budget surplus and replaced it with a mounting budget deficit? Is it Bush's disastrous handling of the economy that has led to the most job losses under any president since Herbert Hoover? Or is it the lies and deceptions the administration used to railroad the nation into supporting a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?

Davy Crockett at the Alamo

Staying up last night with the baby I managed to catch a Discovery Channel special on the Alamo.
I know it is an old issue and all, but it still irritates me when I have to listen to all the debate about the Jose Enrique de la Pena diary and whether it proves that Davy Crockett was captured and executed by Santa Anna.

The first thing that struck me about the show was that de la Pena apparently had two diaries. The first was written in his own hand and was a journal that he kept during his travels with the Mexican Army. There is little doubt about the authenticity of this first document which is certainly a valuable contribution to our historical knowledge. But nowhere in this first document is there any mention of Davy Crockett being captured at the Alamo. He apparently didn't find that little tidbit of information important enough to mention in his daily journal at the time. Instead, it shows up in the second set of documents which were allegedly transcribed by de la Pena many years later while he was sick and dying in prison. This second set of documents which were written by as many as five separate people contain the controversial account of Crockett's execution.
The Discovery Channel show spends an inordinante amount of time trying to determine whether the second set of documents could have been forged. Their conclusion is that there is no evidence to support claims of forgery.

This is all fine. But why does it therefore follow that the story told in the document is true and accurate? The Discovery Channel show just assumes as much. To accept de la Pena's account we have to disregard the eyewitness accounts of two other people present at the aftermath of the battle - Susanna Dickinson and Travis' slave, both of whom identified Crockett's remains surrounded by dead Mexican soldiers.

Let's assume that the second set of documents are not forgeries and also that de la Pena was telling the truth as he remembered it.
Could someone please tell me how Mr. de la Pena would have even known what Davy Crockett looked like? At least Mrs. Dickinson and Travis' slave had the opportunity to meet and see Crockett in person. De la Pena at best might have at one time seen a drawing of Crockett though that is never addressed in any of the historical accounts. Was this person wearing the famed coonskin cap? That was common headgear for many of the Tennessee volunteers at the Alamo.
Did this person identify themselves as Crockett? How do we know it wasn't someone else pretending to be Crockett in the hope that it would save his life.
All in all I find the de la Pena account of Crockett's death to be wholly unconvincing and I'm constantly amazed when I hear historical reports about his accounts that fail to raise these obvious questions.

Ashcroft: Plea Bargains are for wimps!!

Attorney General John Ashcroft is an idiot! OK, maybe that is a bit strong. What I mean to say is that he is an ideologue who is driven to the point of being impractical.

Case in point:

Today the NYTimes is reporting that Ashcroft has issued a directive to federal prosecutors requiring them to always charge defendants with the "most serious, readily provable offense" and not to engage in plea negotiations thereafter.

Nevermind that experts say such a move could swamp our courts with defendants going to trial rather than plea-bargaining for lighter sentences. Ashcroft has a political point to make and he won't let something as inconvenient as reality get in the way.

"If even just a small fraction of the 96 percent of all defendants who currently plead guilty end up going to trial, the courts will be overrun in no time," said Marc Mauer, the assistant director of the Sentencing Project, a research group in Washington that supports prisoners' rights.

"David Burnham, co-director of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which tracks data on federal law enforcement, said the Justice Department could not significantly reduce plea bargains "without collapsing the entire court system."

Plea bargains "are a necessary thing," Mr. Burnham said. "Plea bargains have been used historically because the courts don't have time to have trials. Charges are reduced to encourage prisoners to avoid going to trial, and we just don't have enough judges to do it differently. If you force everyone to go to trial, you'd have to hire a lot more judges."

Oh, I get it! This must be part of Bush's plan to try to create more jobs to make up for some of the thousands that have been lost under his watch.

"Alan Vinegrad, a former United States attorney in Brooklyn, said the change represented a philosophical shift. "There is less of a focus on justice and more of a focus on efficiency," Mr. Vinegrad said."

Well, we wouldn't want too much "justice" in our judicial system. It's just not very efficient. What we need is fewer prosecutors who think for themselves and more automatons who act like rubber stamps.

Update:
The NYTimes ran a guest op-ed on this issue in the Sunday paper -
A Practice as Old as Justice Itself

Music survey

Zagat Surveys has just put out its first book on music in which it lists the 1,000 top albums.

Here is their Top 10:

1. "Born To Run," Bruce Springsteen
2. "Abbey Road," the Beatles
3. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," the Beatles
4. "The Joshua Tree," U2
5. "The White Album," The Beatles
6. "Kind of Blue," Miles Davis
7. "Darkness on the Edge of Town," Bruce Springsteen
8. "Revolver," the Beatles
9. "Dark Side of the Moon," Pink Floyd
10. "Achtung Baby," U2

I have all of these albums so I guess my musical tastes fit the popular mood pretty well.

Compare and contrast

I want to compare and contrast two guest columns that ran in the San Antonio Express-News this past Sunday.
The first takes a critical look at the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq and is written by Joseph Beck, a local high school student.
The second is defending the U.S. war on terrorism and is written by Mike Reeder, a former senior television producer for the Republican National Committee who now lives in Boerne.

Upon first seeing the columns my reaction was dismay. Once again the "So Called Liberal Media" was setting up an unfair fight with the "conservative" view point put forth by a professional pundit straight from the RNC, while the "liberal" perspective is left to the defense of some high school kid.
But after reading the articles, I have to admit that young Mr. Beck carried off his part rather well. His article is straightforward and coherent. He is tough on the administration without being rude or disrespectful. He seems to have all his facts straight and doesn't go off the deep end making any wild accusations.
Here is a sample of Beck's column:

"Of course, it is possible, and probably very likely, that the administration believed WMDs did exist at one time in Iraq. However, how could the administration, with power and responsibility of unparalleled proportions, have relied so exclusively on "information" that has so easily been discredited?"

Now compare this with the article by Mr. Reeder.
He starts off right away with name calling and insults. The "left" is "soft-headed" and their every utterance is "drivel", Reeder opines.
He then makes some rather disturbing statements regarding the war in Afghanistan that he also ties in with the war in Iraq.

"Not a single one of the trained terrorists killed in that conflict will ever board a plane with mayhem in mind or carry out the biological and chemical attacks they were trained to conduct. When one considers the destruction wrought by a handful of hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, it is difficult to see how permanently eliminating thousands of would-be emulators has not enhanced our security."

First off, our reason for going into Afghanistan was to confront the Al Quaeda leadership that we had determined was holed up there. Ousting the reprehensible Taliban from power was a nice bonus that resulted from the conflict. But to assume that everyone of the thousands of Afghan men killed in the conflict were somehow complicit or guilty of the 9-11 attacks is very wrong. And to assume that their deaths will somehow make us safer, is just sickening.
We were right to go after Al Quaeda, but what Mr. Reeder seems to advocate is a type of lynch mob justice where just about any person of Middle Eastern descent can be labeled a terrorist and become a target. Such illogic is what led our nation into its current detour into the Iraqi quagmire.

Reading articles like the one by young Mr. Beck gives me some hope for our country that the shrill rantings of people like Mr. Reeder cannot undermine.

What the Texas Democrats should do next...

Here is my contribution to the Blogburst that is being coordinated by the Texas Democrats No. 1 blogger Charlie Kuffner:

The Democrats showed a spark of life this year for the first time since losing all their statewide officeholders.
By showing a little backbone and doing something outrageous to protest the GOP's re-redistricting they garnered national attention and energized much of their core constituency.
Now even if the Republicans ultimately succeed with their mid-decade Perrymandering scheme, at least the Democrats didn't just roll over and take it like chumps. Now the question is how can they keep that spark of life going into the foreseeable future?

First, the Party should make a big issue of trying to save the Congressmen who are being targeted by the re-redistricting effort. Nick Lampson, Jim Turner, Chet Edwards, Charlie Stenholm, heck even Ralph Hall, should be the focal point of a statewide or perhaps nationwide Democratic effort to deny Tom Delay his illicit victory. And even if some or all of them lose, they should be encouraged to run for other statewide offices in the next election. Have one of the ex-congressmen challenge a Republican state senator or try to win back some of the statewide offices that are now under GOP control.

Second, the Party should make sure that they have a viable candidate in every statewide race next time around. Leaving so many open spots on the last general election ballot was a debacle for the Democrats. We can't cede anything to the Republicans without losing more and more ground. And worse, failure to run candidates in every race opens the way for those Republican dupes better known as the Green Party.

Third, don't let the Party's message become too centered around divisive issues - such as race and religion. The Democratic Party's strength is in its diversity. If there is a group of people who are opposed to one issue, try and find common ground on some other topics. The Democratic Party's primary focus should be good government. We are the party that believes that government of the people can and does work. We should never shy away from defending the principles of good government and we should always be ready to point out the shortcomings of the Republicans' anti-government philosophy.

I was proud to be a Democrat again this year and I'm sure I am not alone. The Democratic Party can and should take advantage of this situation and just remember that the tide will turn back again, perhaps sooner than many people are expecting.

Still not committed

I'm still not committed to any of the Democratic candidates at this point. While that would not be surprising for an average American at this point, it seems to be highly unusual for a denizen of the political blogosphere.
In past elections I've seen candidates I liked drop out long before I ever had an opportunity to vote for them in the primary, so I have a tendency to want to hold back and see how things shake out first.

My initial response to the Democratic lineup was to lean ever so slightly towards Sen. John Kerry. He is a mainstream liberal with lots of experience and his military background makes for a striking contrast with Bush. However, I have also been intrigued by Howard Dean's candidacy, especially as it began to catch fire on the Internet. One of my best friends lives up in Burlington, Vermont and is now a big Dean supporter and that has encouraged me to take him more seriously, in fact, you could say that the idealistic part of me is already on board with the Dean camp. But the pragmatic side of me still has fears dating back to the 1988 Dukakis campaign when I first witnessed the Republican slime machine in full force. I still remember Bush Sr.'s smug references to the "L" word, his visits to the flag factory, and the creepy visage of Willie Horton that hovered over the campaign.
The thing that is different about Dean, however, is that he has generated this level of interest so early in the race. Dukakis really did not stand out until he wound up on top of the heap after the primary voting had begun.

As for the other candidates, I think Gephardt should have stayed in the House rather than throwing in the towel on trying to win back a Democratic majority there. Edwards ticked me off by deciding to give up his Senate seat in South Carolina. Lieberman is a tad too conservative for my taste. Graham would be a great candidate if he could get traction, but that will probably only happen if several other folks stumble badly (i.e. Gary Hart). Kucinich, Mosely Braun and Sharpton are not serious candidates.

Wesley Clark's entry into the race adds another level of intrigue for me. The biggest drawback here is his lack of political experience. E.J. Dionne has an excellent article in the WashPo today discussing that topic. I have to be fair in admitting that if Clark had announced that he was a Republican, his lack of experience is one of the first things I would have jumped on. So I would need to rectify that in some way before I could fully commit to his candidacy. That being said, however, I would support almost any one of these candidates in a general election matchup with Bush.