Southern strategies, Dem maladies.

Microsoft's Slate has clearly improved since Jacob Weisberg took over as editor from Michael Kinsley, the sacred cow of liberal journalism. Not that Weisberg's own contributions have added to the mix?his cottage-industry "Bushisms" is a tired joke by now, and a pre-New Hampshire primary solipsistic account of skiing with John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz was perhaps the nadir of his career?but one generously assumes he's concentrating on the overall website. Slate lifer Jack Shafer continues to provide excellent media criticism, far superior to that of cut-and-paste hacks Howard Kurtz (Washington Post) and David Shaw (Los Angeles Times). I don't often agree with chief political reporters William Saletan and Chris Suellentrop, but their writing is at least thoughtful and occasionally entertaining.

The weak link at Slate?admittedly, I don't read much of the arts criticism?continues to be Timothy Noah's amateurish "Chatterbox" column, a regular feature that's usually just silly, but at its worst embarrasses his far more competent colleagues. Noah's Jan. 27 posting, "Forget the South, Democrats: Stop coddling the spoiled brat of presidential politics," was a long and very stupid document inspired by John Kerry's ill-advised statement at Dartmouth College that a Democrat doesn't need the South to win the presidency. Kerry, of course, has since backpedaled on that declaration, once he became the prohibitive front-runner and picked up the endorsements of South Carolina's batty Sen. Fritz Hollings and Rep. James Clyburn.

Kerry, pandering to his New England audience, said: "Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South. Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own." The senator then told the editorial board of South Carolina's The State on Jan. 30: "I absolutely intend to campaign across the South as the nominee because we're one America. I think people make an enormous mistake in dividing the country by region."

This flip-flop, in the space of two weeks, is consistent with Kerry's campaign. His current rallying cry on the stump, aside from "Bring it on!" has been: "I have a message for the influence peddlers, for the polluters, the HMOs, the big drug companies that get in the way, the big oil and the special interests who now call the White House their home. We're coming, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

In the event Kerry actually occupies the Oval Office a year from now, I wonder if his own lobbyist pals and representatives of special interests will have to enter the White House through the servants' quarters. According to last Saturday's Washington Post: "[Kerry], who has made a fight against corporate special interests a centerpiece of his front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show. Kerry?has received nearly $640,000 from lobbyists, many representing telecommunications and financial companies with business before his committee."

Hey, money changes everything.

It's possible for a Democrat to win the presidency without the electoral votes of a single Southern state, but as Noah acknowledges, that candidate would have to hold every Gore victory from 2000 and pick off a few Bush states, such as Ohio or Missouri. And maybe that'll happen, but Noah doesn't dare mention that Minnesota, for example, a "blue" state four years ago, is trending Republican and could easily wind up in Bush's column. And, barring an economic collapse or international disaster, the president has a chance to win in Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin and perhaps even reliably Democratic Maryland.

However, the most glaring omission in Noah's piece is that he ignores the folly of Kerry (or whomever) writing off the South and letting its five open Democratic Senate seats fall more easily to the Republicans than if there were a strong presidential presence in the region. Democrats are currently giddy over their prospects in November now that Howard Dean has been effectively eliminated, citing the robust turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire (and presumably other states) for the party's caucuses and primaries. Why this relative burst of voter activism is a mystery to me: Until recently, there were six legitimate candidates for the nomination, as opposed to just Gore and Bill Bradley in 2000. Also, given the far more perilous times we live in as opposed to the last election, it would be odd if the turnout weren't at a record-setting level.

Noah's strategic reasoning is faulty enough even when he's on his high horse; it becomes repugnant when he slings Southern slurs around in the column. Never mind that he says Sen. Zell Miller is "starting to sound like a right-fringe crackpot"; that's a predictable comment from a partisan who's pissed that a once-loyal Democrat has endorsed Bush. He writes: "Southerners now consider it their God-given right to supply Democrats with presidential candidates or, failing that, to force non-Southern candidates to discuss Him using an alien evangelical vocabulary. (God doesn't hear the prayers of Episcopalians, Congregationalists or Presbyterians. No use even discussing Unitarians, Jews and atheists.)

In fact, even if some Democrats don't consider Florida part of the South, it is, and you'd suspect Kerry would spend a lot of time there, especially since the state has become more Republican since 2000 and more Jews?a tiny percentage of voters nationwide but crucial in a few states, such as Florida?will likely vote for Bush this time around because of his strong support of Israel.

Noah is also offended that Southerners are too sensitive when Howard Dean, for example, referred to some residents as "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks." I agree with Noah that Dean was clumsy in his overall appeal to those voters, but he's saying it's not worth the effort. Besides, in Noah's world, other voting blocs are equally slandered by pandering candidates, citing "metrosexuals," "the underclass," "buppies," "wealthy Jews," "blue-collar Midwesterners" and "inhabitants of 'McMansions.'" I happen to think "metrosexuals" are probably pleased to be so identified, for example, but largely Democrats and the media employ the labels Noah refers to. And let's not forget Security Moms (the update of Soccer Moms) and NASCAR Dads.

It'll suit me fine if the DNC writes off the South and spends its money holding Gore's base and wooing "swing" voters, since unless the Democratic candidate wins decisively, which isn't likely, the U.S. Senate is bound to emerge with a strengthened GOP majority.

Cliff Schecter and Ruy Teixeira, in the Feb. 1 American Prospect, present a more nuanced version of Noah's simplistic suggestion that the Democrats ignore the South. The pair suggests, echoing a number of Democratic strategists, that the nominee run his national campaign as if the entire country were Ohio, a state Bush won narrowly in 2000 and one that might be even closer this year. (There's bound to be another "Florida," so I'd suggest the GOP watch the election workers in Cleveland, St. Louis, Detroit and Philadelphia with eagle eyes.) In addition, while agreeing that prospects in the South aren't promising, they do realize that snubbing the entire region could damage down-ticket candidates. In fact, they make an argument for waging a vigorous contest in Florida (a fool's errand, I believe, but the state is too symbolic for the Democrats not to) and maybe targeting Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Yet where Schecter and Teixeira (who has something at stake since the book he wrote with John Judis is entitled The Emerging Democratic Majority) are deceiving themselves is in the belief that those five Senate seats vacated by Democrats aren't as vulnerable as one might assume.

This reminds me of Andrew Sullivan's Jan. 31 wacko post in which he wears out crocodile worry beads over a CBS poll showing Bush ahead of a generic Democrat by just two points in South Carolina. Sullivan, who, as I've said repeatedly, is just waiting to flip to the Democrats this fall, believes this snippet of January data ought to send Karl Rove to a team of shrinks. Granted, if the November result in SC is anywhere close to that number, Bush loses in a landslide. But in a time period that's been dominated by the Democratic primaries, this is like believing any Newsweek poll (which is comprised of random adults rather than registered voters).

Anyway, the Prospect writers say: "The Democrats' down-ballot prospects in the South are better than generally supposed. Recent polls show Democratic senatorial contenders Erskine Bowles [who lost to Elizabeth Dole in 2002] and Betty Castor running ahead of potential GOP rivals in North Carolina and Florida, respectively. And if Rep. Chris John decides to run for John Breaux's seat in Louisiana, he, too, would likely be an early favorite."

Maybe so. But I remember at this point in 1998 when New York's senior U.S. senator, Chuck Schumer, was far behind his Democratic primary rivals, not to mention the three-term senator, Al D'Amato, whom he defeated in November. In 2004, congressional polls, this early and in the heat of the Democrats' presidential contests, are nearly meaningless: especially before the Republican National Committee has committed resources to those individual states.

When the Democrats' nominee is chosen and political reporters are forced to write about the general election, instead of plumping Sen. John Edwards' distorted view of "Two Americas" or Al Sharpton's one-liners, Americans will see a more spirited battle take place. Joe Klein, in the Feb. 9 Time, comes up with the astonishing conclusion that Bush isn't a "shoo-in," (no shit) and says, "This [Democratic] primary campaign is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton." He bases this on an insider's glee that Beltway "conventional wisdom" (in which he participated) was dashed by Kerry's come-from-behind victories over last year's phenomenon Howard Dean. Klein should stick to novels. So 2004 has begun like 2003, with establishment candidate Kerry as the presumptive nominee. This compares to Clinton's '92 campaign in which he proved, when Mario Cuomo, among others, chickened out of the race, that he was the best politician in a generation?

Yet the fallout from Clinton's regime continues, as DNC chairman Terry McDetriment popped off again on ABC's This Week last Sunday. His comments, which had to make the Kerry campaign mutter, "Terry, Terry, fucking Terry," were a reprise of Wesley Clark supporter Michael Moore, who called Bush a "deserter" during the Vietnam War. War hero McAuliffe, with whom I shared a bunker in 'Nam, said: "George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up. And there's John Kerry, on the stage with a chest full of medals [I thought Jane Fonda chucked them away for Kerry] that he earned by saving the lives of American soldiers. So, as John Kerry says, 'Bring it on!"

No sane Republican will criticize Teresa Heinz's husband for his service in a divisive war a generation ago. But they will point out that Bush has largely dispatched the Taliban, overthrown Saddam Hussein, prevented, at least so far, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, courageously stood with Israel in its never-ending battle with Palestinian thugs and slowly changed the order of the Middle East. Aside from rabid partisans, most Americans, even those who won't vote for Bush, probably believe that the president deserves at least one medal to wear on his own chest.

[MUG1988@aol.com ](mailtoMUG1988@aol.com)