As a Dean supporter, I have to say that Moore's letter to Deaniacs is patronizing rubbish. It's an insult disguised as a compliment, a backhanded slap. While claiming to want Dean's supporters to keep up hope, he characterizes a third-place Iowa finish as a "landslide loss" that is having a "debilitating affect." (He means, of course, "effect," but he's always been stronger on dramatic and comic effect than accuracy). He then says that Dean "could only scrape together 18% of the delegates."

Hmmm. Let's look at this for a sec, Mr. Moore. Your candidate, Wes Clark, could not scrape together any delegates. He couldn't even go the Kucinich route and sell out his supporters by asking them to scrape together delegates for one of the pro-war candidates. That's because…well, he didn't HAVE any supporters. And Now Wes is running less than 18% in the New Hampshire Polls, and almost certain to come in third, which in Moore's book is a "debilitating landslide loss": Wes's second in a row. Beyond this, there are juicy quotes of Clark in the British press praising the iron resolve of Bush and Blair in Iraq, which show that, however he tries to wriggle out of it HE SUPPORTED THE WAR AT FIRST, though he had reservations about the next steps. This is not in itself a guarantee of failure. The two who took Iowa supported the war at first. But surely if Clark can call himself an Anti-War candidate they all can (excepting always Lieberman, who is staunchly pro-war). If Clark tries to run as an anti-war candidate, Rove pulls out the quotes of Clark's heavy praise of the war, followed by his praise of Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld at a GOP fundraiser while he was (he claims) more Democrat than Republican. Please. Bush Light? He's Bush

And how about that debate last night? Michael Moore's rationale for voting Clark is that Clark's record will blow Bush's out of the water because Bush is a deserter. So here comes the softball from Peter Jennings: "Michael Moore says he supports you because George W. Bush is a deserter. Is that what you think?"

And Wes, eager to compare his record to Bush's, begins his commanding oration: "er, I don't know anything about that, but Michael Moore is entitled to his opinion." Now, I understand that it might be sensitive to use a word like "deserter." But surely he could have redirected the question: "those aren't the words I'd choose, but there are certainly irregularities showing that President Bush failed to report for duty for over a year, and no evidence whether he had permission for this absence. It's something we have to look into as a nation because the American people deserve an answer to this serious doubt that has dogged Mr. Bush since his first campaign." You know that's what Smoothie Edwards would have done with a big ol' softball like that. Instead, Wes says "I don't know, I haven't looked into the case, and it's irrelevant to my candidacy."

So let me get this straight: Clark managed to hitch his supporter Moore up the flagpole by his shorts, and did it by RUNNING AWAY from the very comparison that's supposed to convince me to vote for him. Is he afraid to set his military record against Bush's, or afraid of Peter Jennings, or afraid of saying anything controversial? Any way you slice it, he came off as an empty suit.

Also, remember that Clark's celebrity endorsers are Michael Moore, George McGovern and Madonna. Doesn't he know that Moore's reputation among most people is "self-promoting, if endearing, left-wing kook," that Madonna's is "slightly dippy, if mysterious, sex symbol" and that being compared to McGovern is the biggest insult the reporters throw at a left of center candidate? In fact, isn't "McGovern" political and journalistic shorthand for "the debilitating effect of a landslide loss?"

Maybe Moore's directing his sympathies to the wrong candidate…