"I couldn't stand to support this dynasty of deceit"

Meaning it was clear who the person was voting for.

Absolutely. So if they had been counted, and if the Democrats had shrewd lawyers -- instead, they had some self-appointed corporate superstars from Ivy League law schools who were impractical -- they would have gotten the overvotes in the ball game from the beginning, and they'd have won. And the other thing they missed, that was incredible to me, was the fact that the state of Florida was run by the nominee's brother, the secretary of state in charge of the election was the Bush campaign's co-chair. All you had to do was show collusion between these people and you had the equivalent of "state action" and you had a reason to bring in equal protection issues.

People were making those charges, but I guess your point is Gore wasn't pressing those claims at the highest levels.

See, that's the thing. You clearly had a potential Comstock Lode if you could link Katherine Harris to Jeb Bush, to something happening in some county election board and to messages that could be found on her computer that she got from Jeb. What you needed was somebody with stature demanding that this connection had to be examined. Gore didn't do it, and you had the incredible idea that you pick Bill Daley to go down there -- the son of the guy who stole Illinois in 1960 [legendary Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley].

Well, the name has become synonymous with election fraud.

Yes, how do they do these things, the Democrats?

Well, what should they do now? You praised Dean for getting the anger about Iraq message, but you think it's a good thing that he lost in Iowa.

Well, he got the issue with Iraq. But by the time everybody got onboard about the failure of Iraq, his judgment wasn't good enough to create a new set of issues.

Do you think it's over for Dean?

I really do. First of all, I think it's very difficult to hold a big lead when you have it too early, unless you're the sitting president or maybe the vice president and about to succeed.

But then the front-runner becomes John Kerry, and he'll be savaged by the RNC and also by the media. Remember? He used to be too haughty and French-looking ...

Kerry's bought himself some respect, Edwards likewise. You could say, hey, there's the ticket. Edwards could be good on the domestic, populist side of things and Kerry on the military side. But it's important for them that they'll be inoculated from cockiness by Clark coming in. Plus, I have no use for Lieberman, but he'll be a factor in New Hampshire.

Why do you have no use for Lieberman?

He was an apologist for Iraq. And I live in Connecticut, so I know that Joe Lieberman is about as populist as the head of the Chamber of Commerce. But he can be an important factor -- if he can get his 9 or 10 percent, he'll get some delegates. Sharpton can get some black delegates, plus Dean will win some. Actually, if he doesn't win New Hampshire, he won't win anything.

But you think Kerry and Clark will go at each other in New Hampshire.

That's right, so he could still win New Hampshire. We'll see. But if Kerry and Edwards and Clark and Dean each stays a factor, and some of those other candidates get some delegates, you could keep anybody from actually getting the nomination for quite a while.

And you think that's a good thing for the Democrats, even though they front-loaded the primaries to avoid that.

I think that's a very good thing. See, the Republicans were hoping that somebody like Dean would emerge as the early nominee in the primaries, so they could have all the money and one target and the Democratic race dries up, and it's hard for Dean to raise money. Or somebody like Dean, but I think the Republicans were thinking of Dean, because he'd be a wonderful advertising target. Now they're facing a long campaign in which Democrats get excited and keep sending money to people and the Republican money advantage is lost or narrowed. Plus, they don't have one target.

Can you imagine a deadlock scenario?

If they have a total deadlock, the best bet might be Gore, who really got a kind of rejuvenation and actually, finally, says something these days. I mean, Gore could raise the whole Florida thing.

What did you make of Gore backing Dean?

I think it was Machiavellian. You either set yourself up to inherit the Dean people and their network at some future point, or you incur a debt that can be paid in 2008, if Dean is nominated and doesn't win in 2004. It doesn't work if Dean is nominated and wins in 2004 -- but I doubt Gore thought that.

How do you think the Democrats come back on the economy issue? It looks like the tax cut provided a short-term stimulus, at least.

Well, if it was a stimulus, it was what went to the top 1 percent of Americans, who have as much disposable income as the bottom 100 million Americans. So it was simply that by giving the top 1 percent more money, you stimulate everything from Architectural Digest to Tiffany's, and it shows up in GDP. The fact is that it doesn't do squat for people who go to 7-Eleven. A Democrat who was worth something could explain all this.

Virtually every review of the book I've read makes the point that you sound like a liberal or even a lefty. What do you make of your embrace by the left?

Well, it's understandable. But it's too much of a reach to say my ideology is of the left. I think it's a combination of iconoclastic and anti-corruption, and anti the metamorphosis of the Bush family into the first American dynasty. But my book is also about the incipiency of a new Clinton dynasty if Hillary were to run in 2008, which conservatives are concerned about. We've got this developing in both parties.

Looking at four generations of Bushes, and all that inherited wealth and power, there's really no comparison between the Bushes and the Clintons.

No, they're not the same at this point. But if she were to run and win in 2008, the idea of a wife succeeding her husband is just as interesting as a son succeeding his father.

In some ways it's more interesting, but it's not a dynasty. You can even quibble about the use of the word "dynasty" with the Bushes, because obviously, he didn't inherit the presidency. We did elect him.

Obviously? I'm not sure it's obvious at all. [Laughs.]

OK, you got me. Let's put it this way: Obviously they used the political process to get where they are, we can say that much. He didn't just inherit it. Still, when you've got a family with four generations of power and wealth, it seems a stretch to compare that to a possible Clinton-to-Clinton presidency. Unless she gets in thanks to a Supreme Court justice appointed by her husband.

I think that's true.

Can you imagine any scenario in which you vote for Bush?

It's very difficult. I suppose if Hillary Clinton ran with Joe Lieberman on a platform of "the war was really smart, plus we want our dynasty back," well, if they do that, they can forget me. Otherwise the odds are pretty good that I'll go with the Democrat. I couldn't stand to support this dynasty of deceit.

• View blog reactions