"In Defense of Optimism" is the best speech I have read in the race for the Democratic nomination thus far. Most people who follow this sort of thing have already begun to count John Edwards out of this race, and there are a lot of people saying that Howard Dean is going to be the nominee. I'm not quite ready to make that assumption.

Joshua Micah Marshall is the commentator who I have heard say most consistantly that this race will come down to Howard Dean and the anti-Dean. Right now, the former Vermont Governor has all the momentum in this race, from the fundraising prowess to the endorsement of the last Democratic Presidential candidate. It seems as if he will be difficult to stop.

But Dean, more so than any of the other candidates for President, is weakened by the capture of Saddam Hussein. I cannot think of another event that puts his weaknesses so broadly on display. Howard Dean is running on anger, and when I think of the great campaigns of the past, all the times when a popular or once-popular sitting President was defeated, I can’t think of a single time when that anger has ever truly been effective. Even Jimmy Carter, running in the wake of Watergate at a time when the American people were incensed with politics-as-usual offered up hope at least as much as vitriol. And lest we forget, Carter’s fate was a little different from the one Dean is hoping to secure.

Howard Dean is not a Bill Clinton, nor do I ever think he could be a Franklin Roosevelt. There are the inevitable comparisons to George McGovern, but the Democratic presidential candidate I see when I look at Howard Dean is William Jennings Bryant. Of course, I do not think Dr. Dean has Bryant’s gift for oratory, but the Governor has done an admirable job of seizing the anger of a few and turning that into the grounds for a national movement.

Which brings me back to Senator Edwards’ speech. This is a new shift from Edwards, an entirely different focus. This sort of message has been lurking behind the Senator’s campaign for a long time, and if one followed the campaign close enough, one could see it. In fact, Walter Shapiro, a journalist close to Senator Edwards, just wrote the first book to profile the 2004 election, One-Car Caravan: On the Road with the 2004 Democrats Before America Tunes In, and his conclusion in dealing with Edwards as a candidate revolved around the idea that Edwards is consistently the most optimistic person in this race.

Of all the candidates in this race, I’m leaning toward Senator Edwards because he is saying something different from everyone else. He’s angry, to be sure, but he’s also full of hope. I don’t get that sense from Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman or Dean, and I think Clark has seen to much of the world to share that sentiment. As this thing develops, more and more, I’m beginning to think that I could vote for a guy who looks to the future and sees the potential for great things.

Terry Neal, columnist for the Washington Post, says that John Edwards may be in trouble.
But like me, he seems a wee bit uncertain as to why.

To tell the truth, I'm also unsure about why he hasn't caught fire yet. He has his positives. He is smart, articulate, good-looking, and he is spending lots of money. He has been profiled in Vanity Fair and GQ, along with more news-oriented magazines, highlighting these pluses.

In this article, Neal says, "Edwards is a stirring speaker. He's got his stump speech down cold. He paced in front of the crowd, denouncing President Bush as a lackey of rich corporate interests. He talked about his humble beginnings. He extolled his signature issues: near universal health care, increased teacher pay and rewards for the best teachers who work in challenging urban environments, affordable college for every student willing to work for it. "


So what's wrong?


Neal settles on the point (and I think it's a good one) that you can't distinguish him from the other candidates. He's another Senator who voted for the war in Iraq. Sadly perhaps, this isn't an election that is going to be decided on health care and the environment. And I like to think I follow this sort of thing pretty well, but I can't tell you the differences between Kerry and Edwards' health care plan.

You know, it's interesting to watch how these things turn out. With this many Democrats in the ring, it is very possible that we are watching two campaigns as the primary season drifts closer. Of course, we are watching the fight for the top spot, but it seems to me that chances are very good that one of these good campaigners who has yet to light a fire for the top spot could be the campaigning come next year as the Vice Presidential Nominee. This article does a good job going through the various scenarios for General Clark, John Edwards, and Bob Graham.

Personally, I would like to see a John Edwards VP nod. He's not done in the party yet, and I would enjoy watching him play ball for awhile longer.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm announcing it here first. This is my official forcast for the Democratic Primary.


Drum roll please.



Right now, the Democratic bid for President is Wesley Clark's to lose.

Reason One -- Crossover Appeal:
He has something that no other candidate in the race just now has the ability to do, and that is reach across and attract voters from both ends of the political spectrum. If Joe Lieberman were to win the primary, he could win a great many Republican votes. In fact, I can say right now that I would be highly tempted to vote for him. But Senator Lieberman cannot attract Democratic Party members from the far left. If he wins the nomination, they will be attracted to whatever third party candidate decides to run promising liberal ideas. The opposite is true for Howard Dean. He will rally the Democratic activists, but he has already disillusioned the establishment, and GOP members will never vote for him. General Clarks's military credentials will appeal to the conservative elements in the country, and his vocal anti-Bushisms will appeal to the more liberal swath of Americans. His reported moderate domestic agenda will appeal to everyone in the center who has yet to make up her or his mind.


Reason Two--He's not Howard Dean:

By attacking John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, and even Bob Graham, (along with every other Democrat who voted for the War in Iraq) Governor Dean has done nothing to ingratiate himself with the establishment he will depend on come November of the election year. Sure, he's raising money from people who've never contributed to politics before, but he's not going to get the enthuastic support of those who give money every year. General Clark is much better coached than this, and you can tell that the establishment is ready to claim him because of the endorsements that were launched as soon as he officially announced his candidacy.


Reason Three--The Support of the Clintons:

If the Democratic Party has superstars, then they are Senator and Mr. Clinton. President Clinton has thrown his full endorsement to General Clark, saying that, "He is brilliant, he is brave, and he is good." As for Senator Clinton, Fox News has reported that she is ready to serve as Co-Chair of the Clark Campaign. Senator Clinton is the one fundraising dynamo for the party, so Clark's lack of golden coffers shouldn't continue to be a problem.


I'm telling you, this fight is Clark's, if he is able to take it.

Ever since Bill Kellar left the Op-Ed Page to become Executive Editor fo the Times, David Brooks has been publishing essays twice a week. Prior to hiring Mr. Brooks, the Times had only one certifiable conservative pundit (Bill Safire) in its stable. I'm glad they hired David Brooks if for no other reason than to add a little diversity of voice to the Editorial Page, but Brooks can write his socks off. Last week, he wrote this little gem, and I've been meaning to share it with everyone.

Michael Ignatieff is one of my favorite writers when it comes to foreign affairs. Sadly, I don't get to read him but once every few months, but on Sunday he had one heck of a good article in article the New York Times Magazine. I don't know if I agree with all his ideas, but when he writes about needing the change the UN, he speaks with authority. It almost makes me want to go to the Kennedy School for Government.

Yesterday in Iraq, the total of combat deaths sustained during the post-war phase officially exceeded those accrued during major combat operations. But the problem is not that we don’t have enough troops on the ground or that opposition to American occupation is so stiff that our current forces cannot handle themselves.

During a press conference, also yesterday, Secretary Rumsfeld told reporters that the number of combat troops in Iraq was the exact number requested by the commanders on the ground. Obviously, no general wants to say he can’t get the job done with the troops he has, but in this case, I tend to believe him. It’s not more combat troops we need, it’s more military police, more civil engineers, a score of teachers, doctors, and lawyers—a whole new army but an army of Peace Corps volunteers rather than the 82nd Airborne.

And about the violence—if there were a widespread conspiracy to remove American troops from Iraq—the death toll would be in the hundreds each day. This is a small, determined group of radicals, hell-bent on bringing about the return of the Baathist regime or imposing their own will on the majority. Farmers aren’t leaving their fields to take up arms, and husbands aren’t leaving their wives to declare jihad and make war on the infidels. These are people who lived by the sword under Saddam Hussein and who will, in all likelihood, die by the sword under the new administration.

But the whole problem is that swords come a bit too cheaply in Iraq these days. A few weeks ago, going rate for grenades was four to the dollar. Can you imagine law enforcement in LA, if every street hood had access to rocket-propelled grenades and toted around an AK-47? Let’s just say the murder rate would be up.

There is a bit of interesting dialogue at the end of the movie Patton. Towards the end, Patton says, ““There’s only one proper way for a professional soldier to die—from the last bullet of the last battle of the last war”

And General Omar Bradley replies, “I have a feeling that from now on just being a good soldier won’t mean a thing. I’m afraid we’ll have to be diplomats, administrators—you name it.

All General Patton can say to that is, “God Help Us.”

American soldiers did not then, nor do they now train to be policemen or nation-builders. They are trained to kill people, blow things up, and win wars. Right now, Iraq needs a few more people with training in first things, and not so much those with training in the second.

I’m a dork—a geek—a nerd—and I have been for as long as I can remember. In elementary school, while the other kids played on the jungle gym or basketball court, I walked laps around the track, reading a book as I went. In middle school, I was that kid whose hand the teacher would ignore so someone else could answer questions. Needless to say, such activities earned me no cool points with the popular kids. But somewhere along the way, I got contact lenses and a hair cut, roomier jeans and trendier shoes. Through some miracle of miracles, I found a sport at which I had some skill (lacrosse of all things!) and developed confidence in something outside the classroom. All this translated into a weakening of my geeky reputation, if never a complete reversal of the facts.

But at heart, I remain a nerd. Just to cite a few examples: While it annoys my girlfriend, I carry a book everywhere I go. My favorite jacket is a lovely corduroy sports coat. I love to edit, and I actually giggle when I find punctuation errors in major magazines and news journals. I read for fun when I brush my teeth. I love National Public Radio, and American Heritage Magazine is one of my guilty pleasures.

But I am also a registered Republican. I was raised that way, much as I was raised a Carolina fan, but it is for no lack of questioning that I have come to this decision. I believe in fiscal conservativism. I believe in progress through steady, incremental steps forward. I hate deficit spending, and I believe in the power of state governments to correct the problems of their citizens (though I withhold judgment on California).

For years, I have stood by this decision with critical friends (many of whom are fellow nerds). For the most part, we could agree to disagree and appreciate the common ground we share. And let us not mince words. I am a Roosevelt Republican. I support Affirmative Action and I recognize the need for welfare. If we can afford it, I would love to see nation-wide healthcare coverage. I don’t support school vouchers, but I think some privatization of Social Security might be a good thing.

But over the past two years, I have found it increasingly difficult to have these sorts of discussions with my Democratic friends. And believe me, it is through no fault of theirs.

Slowly, slowly mind you, I have begun to see the Republican Party I know and in which I believe disappear. Mr. Bush came into office with a balanced budget and a record surplus. These things are the ideal for me, and while I am a Republican, I believe there was a great deal for which the federal government could have used that surplus. We are on the verge of a Social Security crisis in this country, but not one in government is talking about that. Our education system is failing a generation of a young people, but we haven’t begun to address the issue outside the local level. Our judiciary is stretched to its very limits, but no one is willing to fund it fully. Instead of coming to terms with our problems, we get tax cuts.

But it’s not as if I blame the president. He believes that tax cuts are the way to resurrect the economy, and I (ignorantly perhaps) disagree. No one could have prevented September 11 or the damage to the nation’s economy that followed. But for the way our society has become polarized, I do blame the president. The issues are not as simple as the administration would have us believe. This is where the nerd in me rebels. I don’t think for a minute that President Bush is dumb, but I accuse him of dumbing down the issues. Democrats do not support terrorists or have anything less that our nation’s best interest at heart. Tax cuts are not a panacea for all things monetary, and Saddam Hussein did not cause the attacks on the World Trading Center. And it’s not even the president in particular who is causing this type of derision.

When I want to piss myself off, I watch Fox News. If ever there were a network more focused on politically motivated reporting, we have not seen it. To think—these people actually trademarked the term “Fair and Balanced”—its like Hitler taking out a trademark on “Liberal and Tolerant.” If television had been around in the days of Tammany Hall, imagine Boss Tweed’s glee. Because that is FNC’s closet cousin in terms of reporting—is a machine-controlled daily rag from the Gilded Age. So, on those days when things are just going too well—when I’m too happy or satisfied—I turn on Bill O’Reilly or one of his fellow “unbiased” anchors. Or if I am in the car, there is always conservative talk-radio with its steady live stream of vitriolic diatribe. Or I can even read about the way moderate and liberal Republicans have been ostracized and called into question by my party in any major media publication. There is no shortage of material in the news to make me angry today.

But perhaps that is just how I am supposed to feel. The Republican Party of today is hopping mad, ready to come to blows at the drop of a hat. But I can’t stand it. As a nerd, I do not want a party governed by its anger. I don’t want a party unwilling to second-guess itself. I don’t want a party run by close-minded, ambition-dripping ideologues. That makes me a nerd, but does that make me a Democrat? My heart continues to align itself with the GOP for its historic philosophy, but damn if my head isn’t pointing me a different direction these days.

It has long been my belief that the Californian political system is perhaps the most inherently flawed in the United States. From time to time, California brings to mind the Polish Diet and its absurd requirement for absolute consensus in all manner of business. We are currently living in one of those periods. I am no legal historian (not yet anyway), so I cannot tell you the theory behind the recall. On a rudimentary level, I do know that, originally, progressives celebrated the notion, believing that it gave an unprecedented voice of empowerment to the people. The road to hell is paved in good intentions, and like so many other well-meaning pieces of the Californian legal system, (referendums and the like), the recall motion is being abused by those too wicked or too stupid to have the people’s best intentions at heart.

The media is criticizing those responsible for organizing the efforts for staging the recall just nine months after the last election. They are missing the point. A recall is bad policy at any time, in any place. Whatever its original intentions, the recall can now never be used as an instrument of policy. (Though I doubt to my political core that it could have ever been used as a tool for good). For now and forever, as long as the legality of a recall is not called into question it will be used as a political assassin’s knife, slipped between the rib bones of those too caught up in turmoil to see it coming.

As democrats, (democrats with a small d, of which we are all), we are supposed to be committed to lasting institutions. We have a living Constitution and a federal electoral process that has more or less operated according to its original intent without interruption since 1789. From time to time, there have been bumps—Aaron Burr’s failed attempt to wrest the Presidency into his own hands, the cloakroom bargaining that led to Andrew Jackson’s failed presidential bid, Mayor Daley’s Chicago shenanigans for JFK in his race against Nixon, and the Florida debacle in the last presidential election. There may well always be political funny-business during elections, but without exception the loser of a race has never attempted to circumvent the process once the victorious candidate has been sworn into office. Recall politics have no place within our system. In the place or real honest-to-God malfeasance (or even misfeasance, for that matter), we have constitutionally mandated procedure correct our problems. There are measures that allow for legislative inquiry, independent investigation, censure and impeachment. Barring successful legislative or judicial process, there are always elections, or in the worst cases, term limits. Americans never have to fear a permanent incompetent or crooked politician so long as we remain true to our political institutions.

What we have to witness for the next two months is not some reality show staged for national entertainment, nor is it some wholesome democratic exercise to foster honest change. As terrible a governor as Gray Davis has been, he has committed no crime or impropriety; he has simply been incompetent. We did not recall Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression, and while nearly every other state in the Union is suffering from economic setbacks of near unprecedented proportion, no other governor besides Davis is facing the ballot this fall. With any luck, some number of Californians less than the mandatory 50% will vote for his recall in October. Barring that, citizens from the sunshine state should take steps to ensure this sort of thing never happen again.

A funny thing happens when you are in Washington. Every waking minute, you are inundated with information. I would wake up in the morning to NPR on my radio. I would shower, and then get dressed in front of CNN. I would read the Washington Post on my way to work. And as soon as I arrived, I would read Roll Call or The Hill. Before handing them off to the staffers, I would peruse the editorial pages from the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. And from my little intern desk, I would check the New York Times in the morning and read it all the way through. Midway through the summer, my intern coordinator convinced me to begin reading the Chicago Tribune, so I began logging into their site as well. As the day rolled through, I would read articles that caught my eye at Arts and Letters Daily, I would check the Drudge Report perhaps fifty times before lunch, and in the afternoons, I would read the Political Wire, then around three o’clock, I would check out the National Journal’s Hotline. Throughout the week, I would read magazines as they arrived—Time, Newsweek, the National Journal, New Republic, and the National Review (for starters). All day, news channels would roll from our little TV in the mailroom. When I say I was bombarded with information, I do not kid.

Then, I left the Capitol and checked in at home—Cedar Grove, North Carolina population 350 (livestock included). Now, I love my home, and I missed it a great deal when I was in Washington. But as soon as I got here, it almost seemed as if I came unplugged. There are three televisions in our home where I can access cable news, and I must fight with a brother, a sister, and two parents for possession of one of these outlets at any given time. I live way out in the country, so Internet is often spotty at best, and user-time is even more limited—only one of us can be online at a time. We get a daily paper, which I read through devotedly, and I have become much better acquainted with local news—but WaPo it is not. NPR—NPR I have—whenever I want it, but as much as I love Fresh Air, the State of Things, syndicated BBC, and all the rest—I cannot stand getting my news from a single source. It kills me.

In short, as best as I can tell, I am suffering from a depression brought on by a clinical condition known as Beltway Syndrome (I really do not think I am making this up). Any regular viewer of the West Wing should recognize the symptoms. In an example of the disease in its most clearly manifested form, we see “inforwithdrawal.” On one of the first episodes of this past season (24 Hours in America?), Josh, Toby, and Donna get separated from the Bartlett Campaign and wind up flying through the back roads of several Midwestern states trying to find a way back to Washington. For the rural setting of this episode, cell phone service is patchy, papers do a masterful job with the local fair but having something less to say about national news, and cable TV is never on. When they finally arrive at a motel with modern amenities, Josh and Toby tear through a USA Today like crack fiends, then approach the news on television with the same reverence generally portrayed with monks inside a shrine. Albeit my condition is not so far gone as is theirs, but I went through withdrawal like a junkie.

So I adopted a clearly reasoned program to combat the disease. First, and most importantly, I quit hunting insider-news cold turkey. I did not read the front page of the local paper. When my dad watched the evening news, I left the room, and I avoided the Internet for anything other than email for weeks. In the meantime, I bombarded myself with alternative stimuli, hoping to provoke a response, somewhat akin to the interest levels I received from catching the news as it happened. The effort was costly. In three short weeks, I have watched three complete seasons from The Sopranos (a total of thirty-nine episodes). I have watched every movie nominated for one of last year’s Oscars available to me on DVD. I have taken in 12 movies from the American Film Institute’s 100 Greatest Films of the Twentieth Century. Copies of the New Yorker and the Economist sit stacked beside my bed unopened. Instead, I have gone through six novels, three books of non-political essays, a book of poetry, Laura Hillenbrand’s history of the horse Seabiscuit, and two books on philosophy. At this point, three weeks into my regimen, I am proud to say that I believe the program has achieved success.

Soon, school will start back up, and I can return to hunting the news with the veracity of the most tenacious (amateur) Washington insider (or so I like to think), but for now, officially I am on vacation. I will begin to write essays for the blog slowly, but I hope with regularity.