South Carolina Debate

I forgot that the Dems were debating on Monday night -- and watched "3:10 to Yuma." It looks like I selected one shootout over another.

Based on the aftermath, it is difficult to assess which was bloodier.

Reader, if you also missed the debate, just watch this clip on youtube.

It's like a low-light reel: "featuring" snarky comments about Hillary Clinton's time as a corporate lawyer serving on Wal-mart's board, Barack Obama's ties to slumlord Rezko, the gutter politics of Clintonism, Obama's Iraq position, Bill Clinton's role in the election, etc.

Much of the most critical back-and-forth was "inside baseball" (video link available in that piece) about what Senator Obama told a board of newspaper editors in Reno. This seems to be the most controversial passage from the interview -- I've underlined the part that Senator Clinton's campaign has been emphasizing:

“I think [John] Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the Presidential candidates and it’s all tax cuts. Well, you know, we’ve done that, we tried it.”

Bill Clinton was apparently most offended by this:

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.”

Here's the entire passage.

Will all this yield a bounce for John Edwards? Are Clinton and Obama about to escalate their conflict into all-out thermonuclear war? The mutual assured destruction scenario provides about the only scenario for an Edwards victory.


Visit this blog's homepage.

The narrative

OK, so my specific prediction that Barack Obama would win the New Hampshire primary was wrong. It was based on polling results, which were way off the mark. Hopefully, the polls weren't flawed because of what some call the "Bradley" or "Wilder effect." If you not familiar with those names, read this.

Still, it looks like the media is ready to write the John Edwards campaign obituary merely because he's getting a smaller minority of votes than are the two "major" candidates. Obama beat Edwards twice and Hillary Clinton beat him once, so clearly he must go. Right?

I suspect Edwards is hanging around in case Obama and Clinton start destroying each other in negative ads. John Kerry benefitted in Iowa, 2004, when Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt launched all-out war on one another.

It is also possible that Edwards could poll a much larger number of votes if either Obama or Clinton left the race. He does very well in two-way races versus all the Republicans and could then make an electability argument against his better funded foes.

The Time article I linked above references the 1992 Jerry Brown populist campaign as a model for Edwards, but notes that the current election season is much more compact.


Visit this blog's homepage.

New Hampshire Prediction

I predict that later today, Barack Obama will garner the most votes in the Democratic primary of a small New England state with fairly unrepresentative demographics.

Merely by winning fewer than half the total votes cast by members of his own party (plus whatever independents he attracts), much of the major media will nonetheless behave as if he has already secured his party's nomination. Many will start asking, quite openly, why other candidates who earned "only" 20 to 30% of the vote don't simply drop out of the campaign -- perhaps before they permanently damage the anointed frontrunner.

Bottom line: It is only January 8 and over 95% of the states still need to vote, but media narratives are already starting to run with the "race is over" storyline.

Regardless of money (Hillary Clinton) or message (John Edwards, at least as judged in the left blogosphere), Obama's competitors are finding it increasingly difficult to gain the traction necessary to put a dent in the apparent Obama steamroller. While that result is predictable, this kind of bandwagoning undermines the meaning of the rest of the primary season and turns the race for the presidency into a short-term PR contest instead of a matter for democratic decision-making.

I'm not particularly anti-Obama, but I do think that it is silly that these earliest caucuses and primaries garner so much attention. The media (including the blogosphere) should not compound the error by creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I urge members of the blogosphere and media to go ahead, research and write posts and stories about substantive issues -- and the differences (or similarities) between various candidates. Yes, many of those stories were written in 2007 already, but few American voters were paying attention.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Iowa

Barack Obama has won the Iowa caucuses with about 38% of the vote. The big story, however, may be that Hillary Clinton has finished third. With all precincts reporting by about midnight eastern time, she received just under 29.5% of the vote. It will be reported as 29%.

Edwards got 29.8% of the vote. It will be reported as 30%.

MSNBC exit polling revealed that most Democratic participants wanted a candidate that "Can bring about needed change." A majority of voters wanting "chage" supported Obama.


On December 28, the New York Times interestingly reported that "change" and "health" are among the words most frequently used by Hillary Clinton in her political ads.

Hmmm. Her change is "dump the Republicans," but maybe Democrats want to move past the Clintons...

Obama, by the way, most often says "people" and "believe."

Edwards most frequently says "work" and "America."

The Times story also reported that Obama spent over $8 million in Iowa, Clinton $6.5 million and Edwards $2.7 million.

It total, the Dems spent about $150 per caucus participant!



Visit this blog's homepage.

Remembering December, 2003

Want to hear a story about the ghost of Christmas past? On December 17, 2003, CBS News reported the results of two sets of polls conducted December 10-13 and December 14-16, 2003.

Why two samples? Well, on December 14, 2003, Americans learned that Saddam Hussein had been captured the previous day. Many analysts thought that the event might change the dynamics of the American political landscape.

Here's the interesting data from the poll after Saddam's capture (which is not all that different from the one right before):

CHOICE FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE
(Democratic primary voters)
Now
Howard Dean 23%
Wesley Clark 10%
Joe Lieberman 10%
Richard Gephardt 6%
Al Sharpton 5%
John Kerry 4%
John Edwards 2%
Carol Moseley-Braun 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Don’t Know 28%

Joe Lieberman got a 4% boost after the capture -- nothing else changed very much. The undecideds declined by 4% and there was a bit of meaningless zero-sum movement among the candidates in single digits (a point or two). Dean and Clark remained at #1 and #2 with the same percentage support.

We know what happened over the following weeks. Kerry surged in Iowa, then won New Hampshire and the rest was history. Dean's campaign imploded -- even before "yeehaw" -- while Clark's never caught fire.

I'm noting this recent history to point out that much could change quite quickly. Mike Huckabee's surge in the Republican field reflects this fact -- and Barack Obama is currently putting a lot of heat on front runner Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.

However, even though it is only mid-December, it is also relatively late in the contest. In 2004, Iowa voters caucused on January 19. New Hampshire's primary was held on January 27. A number of interesting states held primaries on February 3, but Super Tuesday was March 2.

This year, Iowa voters are meeting on January 3. The New Hampshire primary is January 8. Super Tuesday is February 5! That day, voters from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and 17 other states will be voting. Many states moved up their voting to be more important in the presidential selection process, but the result is a process that will end before winter does.

For all practical purposes, the race to be the Democratic nominee for president is going to be decided in the next 7 weeks and most voters won't even be paying attention to anything but family and holidays for much of that time.

To-date, I've barely paid attention and I'm something of a political junkie. Just click on some of those 2008 candidate labels below this post and see that I've only sporadically blogged about them. Currently, I'm a soft supporter of John Edwards who is willing to listen to Barack Obama.

I haven't written a lengthy anti-Hillary Clinton post, but I'm not excited by her candidacy. Americans should not be interested in political dynasties. I fear that Clinton will be a divisive figure in the country who will not be able to meet America's needs -- end the Iraq war, reach out to the world, achieve meaningful health care legislation, etc.

In any event, I personally think the rush to pick a nominee is idiotic.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Election 2008: Security policy for Democrats

Bill Hartung had an informative piece on U.S. security policy in The Nation, November 19 issue. It gives credit to -- and points accusing fingers at -- Democratic candidates who stake out particularly good or bad policy positions.

For example, Hartung praises John Edwards for not proposing increases in U.S. troop strength, for his pro-nuclear disarmament position, and for endorsing the Unified Security Budget. As a member of the USB task force, Hartung has a broad view of security:

The most recent task force report calls for cutting $56 billion from the Pentagon budget by eliminating or scaling back spending on unnecessary programs like the F-22 combat aircraft, the Virginia class submarine, the V-22 Osprey, missile defense and nuclear weapons. The proposal then argues that $50 billion of these funds should be invested in peacekeeping, diplomacy, development of alternative energy sources, public health infrastructure and protection of chemical and nuclear plants.

Barack Obama receives praise for his devotion to protecting Soviet-era nuclear material (Nunn-Lugar) and for supporting nuclear disarmament proposals. Obama gets dinged for calling for 80,000 more members of the Marines and Army.

Hillary Clinton also gets dinged by name for supporting the troop increase and is otherwise not mentioned in the article. Unfortunately, I think she's largely to blame for this paragraph in the story:

major candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have not adequately distinguished their views from the Bush doctrine. Each has endorsed one or more of the following actions: threatening a unilateral military strike in the territory of an allied country; keeping all options "on the table"--including, presumably, the use of nuclear weapons--in addressing Iran's nuclear program; increasing the Army and Marines by 80,000 or more troops and increasing the military budget.

Obama and Edwards, however, have also called for strikes against Pakistan -- though there are important differences in their positions. Edwards seems to be a genuine multilateralist.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Edwards: Corporate Responsibility

I haven't yet decided to back any of the 2008 presidential candidates, but John Edwards seems to be advocating a number of interesting ideas that merit serious consideration in the campaign.

In late October, for example, Edwards put forward a plan for corporate responsibility that seems to include a lot of good ideas. The AP story highlighting key plan elements, written by Amy Lorentzen, is still available on the Fox News website:

Require corporations to disclose lobbying activities, political contributions, environmental impacts and government contracts and subsidies.

Give shareholders new rights regarding corporate governance, allowing them more say in decisions such as executive compensation.

Modernize labor laws to help workers join unions and bargain for better pay and benefits.

Create universal retirement accounts that would require employers to offer savings plans for workers who can't access pensions. Edwards said the first $500 workers save would be matched dollar-for-dollar with a tax credit that would be paid for by capital gains taxes.

Those retirement accounts would be mobile, allowing workers to change jobs without losing their pension plans. Paired with a universal health care plan, these mobile new entitlements would provide a real increase in financial security and employment flexibility for American workers.

The intent of the transparency requirement is consistent with my own arguments about public accountability in international institutions: "sunshine will be a powerful disinfectant for corporate malfeasance."


Visit this blog's homepage.

College for Everyone

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards advocates a plan that would make the freshman year of college free to everyone -- so long as they agree to work a nominal amount and "play by the rules" (as President Bill Clinton used to say). This is from his May 11 press release:

Senator John Edwards today announced his plan to make college more affordable for millions of students. Edwards' College Opportunity Agenda includes a national "College for Everyone" initiative, which would pay for one year of public-college tuition, fees, and books for any student who is willing to work hard and stay out of trouble...

The initiative is based on the College for Everyone pilot program in Greene County, North Carolina, that helps pay for the first year of college for young people who agree to work at least 10 hours a week...The projected college-going rate for Greene Central seniors has increased from 54 percent before the program started to 74 percent today.

Edwards says that about 200,000 college-qualified graduates fail to attend college each year, primarily because of cost.

As a college professor, I'm excited by this idea. However, I think it is a good idea primarily because it should make it possible for current students to limit their work hours. Students need to study and excessive work schedules reduce study time.

Over the years, I have taught too many bright students who find a way to attend class, but do not find a way to read their assignments in advance of class or search out knowledge independently. Their work commitments apparently make that impossible.

Obviously, when Edwards says that students will work a "minimum of 10 hours," I hope he also proposes a low maximum.

More details about the plan are available on the candidate's website.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Edwards: Pakistan hawk?

On September 7 at Pace University, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards outlined his anti-terror plan. Like several of the other Democrats, Edwards sounds somewhat hawkish on Pakistan.

His words have certainly been interpreted that way.

Is the perception accurate?

After pointing out the NIE report about the Pakistani safe haven, and the billions in aid delivered to Musharraf's regime, Edwards said:

As president, I will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan, including strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. But I want to be clear about one thing: if we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will.

By including the word "imminent," Edwards is highlighting his agreement with longstanding international norms.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Edwards on the use of force

John Edwards told the Council on Foreign Relations that he would revamp the Bush Doctrine (May 23, 2007):

We must be clear about when it is appropriate for a commander-in-chief to use force. As president, I will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side. However, there are times when force is justified: to protect our vital national interests...to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors...to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments...to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons...and to prevent or stop genocide.

The ellipses appear in the text -- I'm not editing his words.

In any case, Edwards seems to embrace just war principles.

Note that when asked how he would use force as President, candidate George W. Bush had a restrictive interpretation back in 2000. From the October 3 debate with Al Gore:

Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Readers may recall that candidate Bush was opposed to some uses of force -- for humanitarian purposes, especially, including nation-building. Bush often repudiated the so-called Clinton Doctrine.

Edwards would apparently bring back the Clinton Doctrine.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Instant Veep Debate Analysis

Just a few immediate thoughts about the Veep debate...

1. John Edwards missed an opportunity when Dick Cheney brought up all those missed votes. After all, Cheney spent months and months (2001 and 2002) in "an undisclosed location." And Cheney couldn't find Edwards?

It reminds me of when Joe Lieberman failed to pounce in 2000 after Cheney said his great wealth had nothing to do with the government! What a whopper, given Halliburton's defense contracts.

2. Edwards also probably should have dealt with the "flip flop" charge by pointing out that the October 2002 resolution authorized the use of force, but was not a vote for war. Even the President, when he signed it, said he hoped it would help "the cause of peace."

With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary.

It was a vote for coercive diplomacy, and the President blew it. Why not use that more clearly in the debates?

3. The moderator, Gwen Ifill, blew the second half of the debate. Two questions on gay marriage, but nothing specific about national health insurance? Two questions on trial lawyers and tort reform, but none specifically on education? None on social security? I sure hope the presidential debate on domestic policy focuses on more important issues.

4. John Kerry was fine on the "global test" last Thursday. Edwards didn't explain it very well. Some bloggers (like Brad Delong) have pointed to the Declaration of Independence as an example of what Kerry seemed to have in mind:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

As I wrote the other day, this is pretty much what Kerry said when explaining the "global test."

5. MSNBC is criticizing Edwards for his inexperience. Yet, they accuse Cheney of lying in the debate (about his past comments on the 9/11-Saddam link) and don't really discuss the argument Edwards made about this experience gap. Edwards pointed out several times that a strong resume doesn't guarantee good choices.

Edwards, of course, has much more experience in national affairs than George Bush had in 2000. He's been on the Senate Intelligence Committee, for example.

Two Americas

As my regular readers know, I've long been intrigued by the political skills of John Edwards. Long ago, I predicted he could land a spot on the national ticket (or perhaps in the Cabinet).

In any case, today seems like a perfect date to reference his "Two Americas'" address. Here's the key paragraph:

Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.

And Edwards really electrifies crowds when he delivers these words.

The rhetoric is openly populist and quite appealing:

2004 is a make-or-break election because we need to create one America again. And that is the one thing George Bush will never do. Dividing us into two Americas - one privileged, the other burdened - has been his agenda all along. Just look what he wants to do to our tax code. From the beginning, this President has had one solitary goal: to shift the tax burden away from the wealth of the most fortunate and onto the work of the middle class. He wants to cut the capital gains tax, eliminate the dividends tax and the estate tax, and create new tax shelters for millionaires' stocks that are bigger than most people's salaries. By the time he's done, the only people who pay taxes in America will be the millions of middle-class and poor Americans who do all the work.

That's wrong. It's wrong for a millionaire who sits by the pool on the phone to his broker to pay tax at a lower rate than the cop on the beat or the waitress working two shifts.

What's more, by dividing us into two Americas, George Bush is hurting our economy, cheating our future, and undermining our very way of life. The engine of our economy is not that guy sitting by the pool. It is millions of guys and gals in factories, fields, and offices across America who go to work every day trying to do right by their families. When we invest in those Americans, our middle-class grows, and our whole economy grows. That is the simple truth George Bush will never understand.

Democrats all over the country should be applauding Kerry's decision and renew their vows to help bring down Bush in 2004.

I'd excerpt more of the Edwards speech, but I'd encourage everyone to read it...or watch CSPAN. I'm sure they'll be running versions of it very soon.

Here's how Edwards closes the speech:

We will replace the crass politics of greed and the current politics of rage with a new politics of opportunity.

We are all angry at what George Bush has done to our country, our values, and our way of life. But we all know in our hearts that our anger won't change America; our actions will. Democrats are the party of optimism and action, and I am in this fight to keep that tradition alive, and to build on our country's great successes.

Because I believe in an America where every man, woman, and child can reach his or her God-given potential. I believe in an America where the family you're born into and the color of your skin should never control your destiny.

Here's a song lyric from Little Walter I used to quote after winning a big argument against another debate team: "Boom boom! out go the lights."

Populism, 2004

A non-blogging friend of mine has replied by email to my recent post on Kerry and the left.

However, I think he's ignoring my argument about Kerry's populism. And he missed the fact that I voted for Kucinich.

But Kucinich isn't a viable choice anymore. We can support Kerry, support Nader, or "sit this one out." I think the first is the obvious choice, the second helps Bush, and the third is a bad idea.

He has framed the debate as if I'm a liberal and he's a progressive populist. He is anti-NAFTA, WTO, and tax cuts for rich and pro-worker ownership, single-payer health care, and "a dose of healthy anti-imperial isolationism."

Liberals like me, he writes, worry a lot about gay marriage, legal abortions, strict separation of church-state, and affirmative action. He too supports these ideals, but they are not his primary concerns.

Most important, to his mind, the progressive-populist issues can win swing states like Ohio, while the liberal issues are all losers. I generally agree, which is why I said long ago that Kerry should pick John Edwards for Veep in order to employ his "two Americas" rhetoric.

My regular readers would probably note that I hardly ever mention the issues my friend says are liberal. Moreover, I too oppose the tax cuts for the wealthy, and support more worker ownership, single payer health insurance and a significantly reduced US role in international politics.

I would also work to fix the significant ills of NAFTA and the WTO. The US simply isn't going to dump them, however.

If that, and my support for Kerry, makes me a pragmatist, so be it.

Kerry, my friend says, is an elitist milquetoast free-trade liberal, weakened by his inside-the-beltway rich northeastern background. Yet, Kerry too wants to end the tax cuts for the wealthy, supports single-payer health insurance, and clearly argues to limit the extension of US power abroad.

Bush, of course, is a wannabe cowboy conservative, hiding his inside-the-beltway rich northeastern background.

Kerry voted for WTO and NAFTA, but supports significant reforms (some to make trade greener; as I repeatedly write, Kerry is an excellent environmentalist). Indeed, Kerry's call for enforcing trade agreements is quite popular, as measured by opinion polls.

Perhaps my argument was too ambiguous. I consider myself part of the left and I want my like-minded friends to support Kerry in order to influence his presidency. Kerry would arguably be the most progressive President since LBJ.

Read his speeches. He's talking about the very (populist) issues my friend says he cares about most: economic justice, jobs, health care, and restrained internationalism. Plus, Kerry's environmentalism can be populist too (in places like Oregon, New Mexico and Wisconsin). I'm not sure Ralph Nader realizes this based on what he just said about the Green Party national convention.

The left needs to frame issues in an appealing way, but the mantle of populism cannot be reserved exclusively for those that narrowly focus on globalization. After all, Pat Buchanan rejects NAFTA and the WTO, but I'm not ready to label him a populist.

Democratic nomination update

So, how much will support for Kucinich jump now that Dean too has left the race?

Kidding aside, it seems as if something was happening in Wisconsin over the last few days of the campaign making the nomination contest now a 2-man race between John Kerry and John Edwards.

The Zogby poll on election eve had predicted Kerry-Dean-Edwards to finich with these percentages: 47-23-20. That turned out to be significantly off as Kerry got "only" 40%, Edwards finished a strong second with 34%, and Dean trailed with only 18%. Kucinich got 3% and Sharpton 2%.

As in Iowa, a major newspaper (the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) endorsement at the last minute, combined with a good performance in the last debate, may well have influenced some voters to select Edwards. Also, independents (and maybe even Republicans) could have changed the face of the electorate and thereby proved the pollsters wrong.

It's also possible that muddy rumors about Kerry are starting to have an effect on the portion of the voting pool that wants him because of his "electability."

Next Tuesday, voters in Hawaii, Idaho and Utah go to the polls, followed on Super Tuesday, March 2, by California, NY, Ohio, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Edwards win either (or both) of Idaho and Utah, but I've seen no polling data. Figure Kerry to sweep the four New England states on Super Tuesday.

Thus, Edwards must win Georgia, of course, but he also needs to start accumulating delegates if he is to have any hope (however remote) of stopping Kerry. That means he's got to win Ohio plus one other major state.

I mention Ohio because Edwards has been focusing a great deal on lost jobs and the harms of free trade. He's anti-NAFTA, anti-WTO, etc. Apparently, despite the fact that Kerry voted for these accords, he too is starting to talk about their failings.

This is a populist electoral strategy that might play well in the rust belt states that will figure quite prominently in the November election. However, it's not necessarily an issue that will play well in NY (well, maybe upstate) or California or Maryland. I'm not certain about what will play well in Minnesota.

Edwards, like most of the other candidates, has been selling his biography on the campaign trail. It is appealling on some levels: Edwards is the son of a millworker who became the first person in his family to graduate from college -- who then became a trial lawyer fighting corporate America.

With just a little tweaking, Edwards could perhaps spin this into a Washington outsider campaign, since those historically fare well. He has only been in the Senate for four years and has already announced he is not seeking reelection for that seat.

The Bush campaign is already trying to connect Kerry to various special interests, and his long tenure in the Senate makes him "of DC" by default. This might be an appeal that would work in the West next week and in Minnesota the week after.

In sum, the race is narrowing, but it remains interesting. I'm still embracing my prediction from September 12, 2003:

I think Edwards's prospects for a space on the national ticket are going to look much better than they do now by next February.

With all the discussion of a Kerry/Edwards ticket, this prediction is starting to look good.

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is a more likely choice, according to well-known pundit Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, because the Dems need to pick someone who will help in the rust belt. It's geography vs. political ideas and I think Edwards is proving his mettle on the national campaign trail.


Update: Charlie Rose tonight has Mark Halperin, Political Director of ABC News and Ronald Brownstein of The Los Angeles Times. Both reject Edwards as Veep because they think Kerry will pick someone who can help win a swing state -- but they are focusing completely on geography.

The message Edwards is pushing is perfect for the rust belt swing states and its incredible these political analysts cannot see this. So what if Edwards can't help the Dems win North Carolina? He can help win Ohio, Pennsylvania and perhaps other states.

America's next President?

The US presidential election is still 14 months away. However, the past week has been quite interesting for those who follow politics closely. I've already been talking about some of the incumbent's problems, so let me turn today to the Democrats.

I'm not sure which of these developments will turn out to be the most important in the long haul, but let me mention two.

First, John Edwards of North Carolina announced that he will not seek re-election in the Senate. To many observers, this probably seems totally irrational. After all, Joe Lieberman sought to retain his seat in 2000, why wouldn't Edwards do the same as a hedge against a failed national campaign? According to the AP, North Carolina election law would allow Edwards to pursue both elected positions simultaneously.

I'm guessing Edwards is trying to signal a very strong commitment to the national election. Even if he's really running for Vice President, this allows him to devote complete attention to the task. As I argue below, he's going to have to work hard, because I think the odds are against him becoming the presidential nominee.

Still, I think Edwards's prospects for a space on the national ticket are going to look much better than they do now by next February. If Howard Dean holds his lead in the latest Iowa polls, Richard Gephardt has basically already said he'll quit the race. Gephardt won Iowa in 1988 and has to win that midwestern state's caucuses.

Then, if Dean wins New Hampshire, John Kerry is in big trouble and Joe Lieberman could be too.

So, by January 30, the Democratic field might be down to Dean, Edwards, Bob Graham, Carol Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich. On February 3, these states have primaries or caucuses: Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico (the only caucuses on this date), Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

A moderate is going to do well in Missouri, Oklahoma and South Carolina -- and could even win all 3 of those states.

Much could still change by early February -- for example Wesley Clark could be the one winning those states. Or Lieberman might still be in the race, but I frankly doubt he's going to do very well. That means either Graham or Edwards stand a good chance of winning some of these states.

On February 10, Tennessee and Virginia also vote in primaries. So that means Edwards might have 5 primary victories going into Super Tuesday (March 2).

However, I predict that Dean (or perhaps Kerry if the Doc stumbles between now and Iowa/New Hampshire) will virtually seal up the nomination on that date with wins in New York, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.

Second, there are rumors flying around that Dean met with Clark recently to ask for his support -- and perhaps to explore the possibility of Clark taking a Vice Presidential position on a Dean ticket.

It is really way too early to speculate about this kind of stuff, but it's my blog so I'm going to do it anyway.

Clark would almost perfectly balance Dean and offer genuine foreign policy credibility. He would do for Dean what Republicans believed Cheney did for Bush in 2000. Clark has been a genuine critic of Bush foreign policy, but he's apparently a classic multilateralist who can imagine legitimate uses of force. In short, he's like Kerry, only a recently retired General who has been on CNN a lot and is from Arkansas...and was a Rhodes Scholar.

Repeat: We're talking about a smart guy who won the war over Kosovo with zero US soldier deaths, with a regular gig on CNN and a direct connect to the south?

B-I-N-G-O. We have a bingo!

Edwards is a likable southerner who could help balance a Dean ticket, but Clark seems like a much better choice. The Democrats really need to win a couple of border states like West Virginia and Arkansas. Dean's "state's rights" position on guns, combined with Clark, might just be enough to do it.

I guess that makes John Edwards a Cabinet member, January 2005. Attorney General maybe?

Update 9/17/03

daily KOS links these 2 stories. The blogger argues that Clark may well virtually ignore Iowa and New Hampshire, hoping to emerge as the "anti-Dean" in the South Carolina and Oklahoma primaries. Clark may even have timed his announcement this week to steal thunder from Edwards, who announced 9/16/03. Edwards, as I argue above, is also positioning to be the early anti-Dean.