If you are a political junkie like myself, these next two weeks should provide some pretty good theater. The Democratic race is as narrow as a needle and it seems all the candidates are trying everything to sway caucus goers in Iowa. On C-SPAN on Sunday you can hear the top three Democratic contenders throughout the day as they utter their closing arguments before Iowa votes in their caucus on Thursday. Two caucus locations within Iowa will be featured on C-SPAN this Thursday evening. The Republican caucus is straight forward. Voters go in, cast their ballots and leave. The Democratic caucus is much more involved. A candidate at each location must become viable with at least 15% of the vote. If a candidate can’t become viable, those voters must then choose a second candidate. It is a fascinating practice in democracy as those voters whose candidates aren’t viable are then begged, pleaded, and rationalized into voting for candidates by the supporters of candidates who are viable. It becomes a political rugby match with a psychological component. Experts for the Democratic candidates, according to the NY Times, say the “contest could be determined by a swing of as few as 1,000 voters”.

The Democratic caucus in Iowa is made even more interesting due to the manner in which Obama, Edwards, and Clinton cull their support. Obama is said to have amazing organization in the Hawkeye State. His fresh face, representing a step beyond the 1960s culture wars that have defined the past four decades of American politics, provides a chance for significant change. John Edwards has established a network of supporters and a large list of caucus goers from his presidential run in 2004, especially within the vast rural areas. Under the Iowa caucus system, voters in rural areas have more weight than those in urban areas. This is why you see these candidates meander to the smallest locations in the state. Edwards’ “rage against the corporate machine” campaign resonates with many these days. Hillary Clinton has used name recognition and a powerful political machine to establish her support.

What is at stake in Iowa? Most believe Edwards must win Iowa to have any chance in 2008. Some say the same thing about Obama but he is competitive in the New Hampshire polls so second place behind Edwards would not be catastrophic. Pundits believe that both candidates need to finish above Clinton. The Clinton campaign would rather see Edwards finish above her than Obama. They see Obama as a bigger threat. As I said, tune in Thursday and you shouldn’t be disappointed.

There is much talk about Iraq moving off American’s top issues for the 2008 election. American soldiers are still dying, just not like they were before the surge. Iraqis are still dying, just not like they were before the surge. And that is my good news. Juan Cole explains in his blog Informed Comment the situation away from the surge is not going well at all (click here)

_____________________________________________

Supporting Musharraf reminds me of American Foreign Policy during the Cold War. It wasn’t uncommon for the US to support any leader as long as they were anti-communist. The sentiment now is we support leaders as long as they are anti-terrorist. The President of Pakistan took the reigns of power via a military coup. It is always easier to support a pro-US dictator than it is to support an anti-American democratic leader. Look at the US intervention in Guatemala during the Eisenhower administration. One problem we have with General Musharraf is his government was actively supporting the Taliban and thus Al-Qaeda before 9-11 and we know now there are elements in his government that still share pro Al-Qaeda sentiments. Musharraf has changed his tune and has claimed to have “played ball” with the US. The biggest issue we have, however, is Musharraf has many reasons to not track down and kill Osama Bin Laden. Actually he has billions of reasons in the form of US dollars. If Al-Qaeda was neutralized in Pakistan the US would do what they always do. They would turn their attention elsewhere and take their checkbook with them. Musharraf receives billions of dollars in aid, much of it simply disappears into the oblivion of the corrupt Pakistani government infrastructure with little to show for it. The death of Bhutto has shone a nasty little light into the corner of the world where we should be most active. While the nation has been laboring over the Bush war in Iraq, our policy in the eastern recesses of the Middle East has been festering like a bad sore when the wrong medicine is used. It is a shame it took the death of Benazir Bhutto for the nation to reexamine our relationship with Musharraf and Pakistan but it is one that was a long time in coming. Perhaps the surge in Iraq didn’t allow the Iraqi government to get its act together. Rather, it allowed the US public to take a breath and to reassess its lack of attention to the region of the Middle East that brought us September 11.

“I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

            George W. Bush     September 14, 2001