On what? That if caught, Osama bin Laden should be granted the due process of law in a courtroom, like the kind seen in "Law and Order." Killing him? That should wait. From the Politico:

But, according to the AP, the former senator said such a punishment shouldn't be immediately meted out. "No, no, no, we've got due process to go through" depending on the circumstances, he said. "I'm not suggesting those things happen simultaneously."

Good for Fred Thompson. It's pretty much the same line that Howard Dean follows:

"I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trails,"

And Thompson isn't just giving lip-service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. He put it into practice back in the early 1990's when his firm was defending the Libyan terrorists who blew up Pan Am 103. Thompson even took it upon himself to advise a colleague on how best to defend the Libyans from prosecution. I wonder what former prosecutor, Rudy Giulaini makes of it all.

Well, the DNC is playing hardball. As threatened, the Democratic National Committee has voted to strip Florida of all of its delegates to the Democratic convention in 2008. This is in retaliation for Florida scheduling its Democratic presidential primary early, on January 29, 2008. Originally, Howard Dean had threatened to take away any delegates that were won by candidates campaigning in Florida after they announced the move-up of their primary, but everyone ignored him. This decision makes things simpler by invalidating all future delegates.

The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted yesterday morning to strip Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal.

There is an automatic 30 day stay on this decision, giving Florida time to switch its primary date to a later one. Right now it's a game of chicken. Who will blink first, Howard Dean and the DNC or the Florida Democrats? In a sign of how acrimonious this fight could get, Florida Democrats are invoking the visage of the 2000 Recount, and blaming the Republicans, of course:

They blamed the Republicans who control the Florida Legislature and invoked the biggest bogeyman of all: the 2000 presidential recount. ''We're going to fight to have Florida Democratic votes counted,'' said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, the state's top Democrat. ``It's always been a top priority for the Democratic National Committee to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote, and we hope the DNC is going to continue to honor this right.'' Nelson didn't mention that it was a Democrat who sponsored the presidential primary bill in the state Senate and all but one Democrat voted for the bill in the House. Where was the e-mail campaign back then?

Those are fighting words for Democrats, similar to someone screaming at an opponent, "You're mother's a whore!". That it's one group of Democrats screaming those words at another promises to make the next 30 days very interesting.

Earlier this summer I posted on this little comment from Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, when the State of Florida defied his edict not to move up their Democrat Presidential primary date:

Sure, Florida is America's biggest political swing state. But don't expect the national Democratic Party to back off punishing Sunshine State Democrats for scheduling an early presidential primary. "Their primary essentially won't count, " Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said of Florida. "Anybody who campaigns in Florida is ineligible for delegates."

Well, it looks as if Dean and the DNC are going to finally announce this weekend what they are going to do about the "rogue states" that have moved up their primary dates, disobeying the DNC. It seems clear from the above quote that anything less than awarding no delegates to Democrats who campaign in Florida and the other early states, essentially making those primaries meaningless, will do.

The ugly elbowing over which states will go first in the 2008 presidential primary process is due to explode into open warfare Saturday as the Democratic National Committee decides what to do about "rogue" states that are threatening to violate party rules. The DNC's powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. in Washington to decide primarily what sanctions to take against Florida, where Democrats say they will conduct a primary on Jan. 29 in violation of party rules. The Politico has learned, however, that a secret 9 a.m. "off the record" breakfast will precede the open meeting and the 30 sometimes contentious members of the rules commitee will try to achieve some kind of consensus.

Read the whole Politico article, it's quite interesting. Will the Democrats be men and women of their words? We shall see...

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post that looked at the wild swings in the 2004 Democratic primary election. In short, the moral of the story is that fortunes change very quickly in politics. A few short weeks before the nation's first primary, Howard Dean was dominating the headlines, and John Kerry was placing third or forth in most polls. But momentum from victory in a single state (Iowa) propelled Kerry to a second win (New Hampshire), and, in turn, a veritable stranglehold on the nomination.

The media (and I include bloggers in that vast category) love to have a story to tell. Lately, that story has been the realization that Hillary Clinton will inevitably be the Democrats' nominee. In part, this comes from the fact that Clinton has run a sound campaign and continues to do well in national polls. But another aspect, it seems to me, is the fact that people are uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty. As a country, we seem to just want to get the whole thing over with, hence our obsession and over-analysis of polls. But if history teaches us anything, it is that national polls are fickle. The value of state primaries is that they focus voters on the candidates themselves, rather than on the stories that we in the media write about them. They listen to them at diners and state fairs and schools, and, yes, debates. And while Mrs. Clinton may appear to have an insurmountable lead in national polls, Iowa, where the candidates have been spending the bulk of their time and energy, remains a toss-up.

At Sunday's Democratic debate, Barack Obama showed why he hasn't faded away. George Stephanopoulos gave each of the other candidates the chance to explain why Obama was too inexperienced to be president. But it was Obama himself, who turned the question to his advantage. "Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and many of the people on this stage that authorized this war."

This is not to say that Obama has not made mistakes. But what candidate hasn't? The fact remains that, like his two main rivals, Obama has a strong organization in Iowa, and very well may win the state, causing a chain reaction similar to, say, 2004.

Yesterday, Kos posted a very illuminating and (gasp!) measured piece on how seriously one should get wrapped up in the constant stream of polling data bombarding our computer and television screens.We are truly are a nation that is obsessed with the horse-race aspect of elections. Andrew Sullivan calls it "primary polling crack," and for good reason. But bloggers across the political divide are guilty of pouncing on the latest numbers and prognosticating the future to their readers as if God herself had whispered into their ears.

So how much credence should we give the rise and fall of percentage points? If history is a guide, Kos claims, not much. Looking back at the Gallup's Democratic primary numbers (national) in June of 2003 we see the following rankings:

Joe Lieberman 21%
Dick Gephardt 17%
John Kerry 13%
Bob Graham 7%
Howard Dean 7%

Now let's fast-forward to the first week of January, 2004, just before the Iowa Caucuses:

Priceless. Howard Dean is officially telling Florida Democrats that since they defied him, he's going to make sure their primary doesn't count!

Sure, Florida is America's biggest political swing state. But don't expect the national Democratic Party to back off punishing Sunshine State Democrats for scheduling an early presidential primary. "Their primary essentially won't count, " Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said of Florida. "Anybody who campaigns in Florida is ineligible for delegates."

Whoa... Anyone who campaigns in Florida won't get delegates? Exactly how is he going to pull that off? Last I looked, Hillary and Obama both had Florida operations, and Hillary was in Boca Raton for a fundraiser last month. Even her national co-chairs, Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Alcee Hastings, are from Florida! Does that mean that Dean has eliminated any chance of Hillary getting any delegates from Florida - just by his own fiat?

With states front-loading primaries so early in the 2008 election season, the whole traditional primary/convention dynamic is quickly turning into a joke. But this is ridiculous.

Could John Edwards help the Democratic Party grow strong in the South?

It may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. In 2003, Howard Dean said, "White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us, and not [Republicans], because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too."

Dean could have phrased this more sensitively, but the idea of Democrats finding support in the South may grow into a reality in future elections. Jim Webb prevailed against George Allen in a tight Virginia Senate race last year, while Edwards served a term in North Carolina, the same state that became infamous as Jesse Helms' home territory.

And it seems like this precedent has been brewing for some time. Bill Clinton of Arkansas still casts a shadow over the Democratic Party, while the GOP couldn't win a North Carolina secretary of state race with famed NASCAR driver Richard Petty in 1996. Perhaps Edwards will benefit from this developing momentum in the 2008 primaries and election.

John Edwards is ahead in Iowa. Hillary Clinton is falling behind. And on the Republican side, Mitt Romney is moving to the top. Should the other candidates be worried? As you probably know by now, I am a captive of history. Therefore, true to my style, I reviewed the early polls for the 2004 Iowa caucus.

In August 2003, John Kerry was in trouble. He had 14 percent of the potential voters on his side. Edwards, in his first bid for the White House, had 5 percent while Howard Dean 23 percent and Dick Gephardt had 21 percent.

By November 2003, Kerry had a slight upward movement to 15 percent. Edwards stayed the same. Dean slipped to 20 percent and Gephardt was feeling confident with a 27 percent showing.

January 2004 showed a new leader. Suddenly, John Kerry was up to 26 percent. Edwards had surged to 23 percent. Dean was languishing at 18 percent and Gephardt had plunged to 18 percent.

The final results? Kerry 37.6 percent, Edwards 31.8 percent, Dean 18 percent and Gephardt 10.6 percent.

In the end, the cream came to the top. The moral to the story is not to bother with the early Iowa caucus polls. As a footnote, for those who do care about these irrelevant Iowa polls, Romney and Edwards are in the lead in Iowa.

In a story that DNC Chairman Howard Dean would say proves his point (Dean: Bar Media and Candidates Will Talk), the good Doctor informed the Mortgage Bankers Association that if people want political candidates to talk openly and frankly about issues, they should shut the media out:

The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media. During the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, a banker expressed frustration with candidates who only talk in sound bites and wondered how that could be changed.

Howard Dean, once a presidential candidate, offered a simple solution. "I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press," Dean said.

I know what Dean's getting at, but the real problem is that we have too many candidates that rely too much on focus groups and policy aides to feed them talking points. In the real world, say in running a business or interviewing a job applicant for an important job, if you are good at what you do it's easy to weed out those whose expertise is primarily in B.S. That's essentially what certain parts of the media, the political reporters and columnists, are supposed to do. As with anything else in life, you will have a minority of those who abuse their positions. But that's life, and the opposite extreme -- what Dean is proposing -- isn't right either.

If you are quick on your feet, have a good grasp of issues, and are a good communicator, you'll be able to hold your own against the media. There will always be a few "gotcha" moments, but if you respond quickly and forcefully you'll generally be fine. Having the courage of your beliefs helps, as well.

Howard Dean's problem is that he's said quite a few foolish things, and generally keeps digging once called on them. So he blames the media. Boo-hoo.

There's an item in today's New York Times' political blog, The Caucus, which if true is going to come back to bite the Democrats big time. Kate Phillips is reporting that the Democratic National Committee (headed by Howard Dean) is sanctioning six Democrat presidential primary debates. There's scheduled to be one a month starting in July, although any further logistics have not been finalized. Except for one: the DNC refuses to sanction any on Fox News.

The Democratic National Committee announced today that it would "sanction" six presidential debates, beginning later this year. It said dates, logistics and such have not been decided yet. They would start in July, and be held once a month.

But the release had barely landed when opponents of Fox News, namely the ColorofChange.org online group, demanded that the D.N.C. not endorse - or include among its debates - the September event co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Fox in Detroit.

"The D.N.C. sanctioned debates will not include Fox," Karen Finney, the committee's communications director, told us.

A predominantly white Democratic party, led by the blindingly white Howard Dean, now is telling the Congressional Black Caucus that they won't endorse their debates because they are on Fox News? That's going to go over really well...

The New York Post this morning noted that not one Democrat leader has come out and criticized John Kerry's remarks, which would go a long way to diffusing this story. Especially since there are quite a few Democrat candidates who can see this incident for what it is (and the possible damage it could do to them) and are blasting Kerry.

Howard Dean had a chance to this morning in Vermont, but chose not to:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean defended U.S. Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday, dismissing as "bloopers" remarks Kerry made that were construed by some to be insulting to American troops. "Kerry made a blooper. Bloopers happen," the former Vermont governor told reporters.

And from the same article, what's an appearance by Howard Dean without something from way out in left field coming from his mouth:

"I think there's a lot of similarities between Nixon-Agnew and Bush-Cheney," he said, saying both used the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes.

I find it very hard to believe that if such a thing was going on, that it wouldn't have been front page news for months by now. Unless, of course, Dean's cronies are planning on releasing another fake story right before next Tuesday...

Or perhaps he mixed up Bush-Cheney with Clinton-Gore...