Last night strengthened the argument that Lehane's attempts to slow Dean's momentum in Iowa may have driven the nail into Clark's campaign. By intensifying the latent trend against Dean, of course, Lehane created the conditions for Kerry to regain front-runner status, forcing Clark into a war against an enemy he didn't prepare for. The Maginot Line Clark built against Dean won't even slow Kerry down.

The delicious irony, of course, is that Lehane did his best work for Kerry after he left to work for a rival campaign.

 
Great Moments in American Debate: January 22, 2004

HOWARD DEAN
Most belated concession speech: "[S]ure, I would have liked to have been a little bit -- done a little better. But I congratulate John Kerry and John Edwards on great campaigns. I think they ran a great campaign."

JOE LIEBERMAN
Come to think of it, shouldn't you be challenging him in the primary? "President Bush said to someone that the Democrat he thought would give him the toughest fight for reelection was Joe Lieberman. ... And I think the reason is that the Republicans can't run their normal playbook on me that they try to run on Democratic candidates. They can't say I flip-flop because I don't. They can't say I'm weak on defense because I'm not. They can't say I'm weak on values because I'm not. They can't say I'm a big taxer and a big spender."

And you thought gasohol pandering in Iowa was bad... DISTASO: "I would like to follow up by asking Senator Lieberman ... to pledge now to use your power as president, as the nominee or as senator, to actively oppose any efforts in the future ... to boot New Hampshire out of its first-in-the-nation place."

LIEBERMAN: "I will pledge to the death to protect ... the New Hampshire primary, so help me God."

JENNINGS: "Let it never be said that any of you pander."

AL SHARPTON
Quick, call the Superfriends! "As I've traveled all over the world, from the Caribbean to Africa to Europe to the Middle East, people need our trade and aid. They know we're a superpower. The question is: Can we be a super-help in the time of need?"

One economic board's as good as another, right? PETER JENNINGS: "[If] you have the opportunity to nominate someone to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, what kind of person would you consider for the job?"

SHARPTON: "[W]e must have a person at the [International] Monetary Fund that is concerned about growth of all...."

(Bonus factoid: The Managing Director of the IMF is chosen by the Executive Board, consisting of eight permanent national seats, plus sixteen other directors elected by multinational constituency groups.)

Except for that pesky Second Amendment, right? "[L]et me say something about the Defense of Marriage Act. I am unilaterally opposed to any civil or human right being left to states' rights. That is a dangerous precedent."

WESLEY CLARK
Second most disturbing sign of disengagement: JENNINGS: "The other day you had a rally here ... [and Michael] Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush ... [is] a "deserter." ... Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?"

CLARK: "I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot. ... To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen -- he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign."

Most disturbing sign of disengagement: GRIFFITH: "[A]s a lobbyist for Acxiom Corp, you helped secure a federal contract for the system known as CAPPS II, a passenger- screening program which has been criticized by the ACLU for violating people's rights to privacy."

CLARK: "Well, I don't know about CAPPS II because I have not seen the program, and I don't think many of the people who are worried about it have. ... And when I was consulting with Acxiom -- and I was on the board of the company, and I did take them around and introduce them to various members of the United States government, the Defense Department and so forth, because their technology will improve our security."

DENNIS KUCINICH
And gumdrop tree and chocolate lakes and fluffy marshmallow clouds, too! "[W]hat I would replace [No Child Left Behind] with is a new educational structure where the focus would be on helping to bring forth the creativity of our children, in stressing arts and language, music; to invite the participation of educational philosophers and psychologists and administrators and teachers and parents and children."

Most honest answer of the night: GRIFFITH: "Why did you cut a deal to send voters to the Edwards camp if you didn't meet the 15 percent threshold in Iowa?"

KUCINICH: "John Edwards and I are friends. And one thing we agreed on in Iowa is that we both wanted more delegates. That's what we agreed on."

He's counting on those extraterrestrial delegates at the convention: "I intend to have a very infinitely interesting journey to planet Earth."

JOHN EDWARDS
Most obvious name-dropping award: "For example, President Musharraf said to me when I met with him: They desperately needed a public school system as an alternative to the religious schools, where their kids are taught to hate Americans."

States' rights for me, but not for thee: EDWARDS: "[W]hat happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues."

HUME: " Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on anther state? In other words, doesn't the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take?"

EDWARDS: "No, the Defense of Marriage -- first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it."

Best out-of-the-park answer: HUME: "I wonder ... if some people don't also look at you and ... wonde[r] if, while you may be very promising and attractive in their ideas, it may be a little early for the White House for you?"

EDWARDS: "Well, actually, Brit, I think 32 percent of Iowans decided it was not too early ... that they wanted me to be their president."

JOHN KERRY
One of these things is not like the other... "I am a veteran. I fought in a war. I've been a prosecutor. I've sent people to jail for the rest of their life. I have, as a lieutenant governor, helped to fight to create a national plan on acid rain to protect our rivers and lakes and streams for the future."

Bravest refusal to pander: GRIFFITH: "What do you propose in the balancing act between the environment and the economy, as it pertains to MTBE?"

KERRY: "It needs to be banned, taken out. And the companies that have put it in need to be held responsible for it."

 
The BC04 poll numbers being reported, if they are to be trusted, look especially bad for the Administration: Americans trust Bush over Democrats 2-1 on national security issues, but still split down to a statistical tie on re-elect.

Paradoxically, the news that the public still doesn't trust the Dems on security should be cheering to Democratic strategists. First of all, it shows that a hedgehog strategy -- the One Big Thing -- isn't going to get BC04 the win this year. Instead, they'll be forced to compete on the domestic playing field, where Democrats are traditionally stronger. The Dems also have the advantage of going on the offensive against a lackluster recovery and mounting issues such as health care. Unless the jobs numbers begin moving at a faster pace in the next 3-4 months, the economy will be baked in the cake for November as a BC04 liability.

Second, the Dems will benefit from low expectations. If the public has already factored in the idea that BC04 is a better national security choice, that message has less utility as a campaign tool.

With 2/3 of the public believing they are less credible on national security issues, the Dems have less to defend and far more opportunity to pick up votes by way of an experienced nat-sec candidate like Kerry or Clark, or by the support of figure like Edwards advisor Gen. Hugh Shelton.

Of course, the wind can blow both ways: if BC04 makes a strong case for their domestic policies, the Dems will be cornered in precisely the same manner. But for now, with job growth still mired in a slump, the overall situation seems to slightly favor the Democrats.

 
Christian activists are sending out floods of e-mails and calling AM radio talk shows. Lefty progressives are publishing press releases and posting heated editorials to their web pages. And they're both worried about the same thing: Bush's recess appointment of Judge Charles Pickering to the federal appellate bench.

Pickering has been consistently (and, indeed, largely unfairly) attacked for his efforts to reduce the sentence of a convicted cross-burner (as Byron York argues, there arguably wasn't the mens rea of racism on the part of the person Pickering was concerned with). But Pickering has been opposed by many evangelical groups because of his legally-tolerant views on homosexuality, which led to vocal support by the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative gay group. As much as Democrats have savaged Pickering for political reasons, evangelicals detest him for substantive ones.

Evangelicals are not a naturally politically-active group, and their support for the GOP has never been that of party loyalists; if spurned, they simply don't show up to vote. In 1996, their turnout in the Presidential election was the first drop in total numbers in five elections, and Dole suffered for it. If Bush doesn't spend more time working on conservative Christian issues, he may find a softer support base than expected come November.

 
Things have certainly gotten interesting in Iowa: the Des Moines Register has published the Iowa Poll, showing Kerry on top with 26%, Edwards in second with 23%, and former leaders Dean and Gephardt with 20% and 18%, respectively. In other words, we're still in a four-way statistical tie.

Every candidate has specific advantages going in: Gephardt has an experienced base with long caucusgoing experience; Dean has highly motivated supporters concentrated in the densely-populated eastern portion of the state; Kerry has Whouley, who has pulled out last-minute Iowa and New Hampshire upsets before; and both Edwards and Kerry have low negatives compared to Dean and Gephardt, which makes them better second-tier candidates in caucuses where one or more of the major candidates fails to meet the minimum-supporter test, but the more economically-liberal Gephardt and antiwar Dean are more likely to pick up any Kucinich supporters who show up. So here, too, everyone has some edge, but no one has a decisive edge.

In the meantime, Dean took out precious stump time to go visit Georgia, where he got some nice words (but no endorsement) from Jimmy Carter, to whom Trippi has often compared Dean to. Fairly or unfairly, unless Dean ekes a win out tomorrow, this will be viewed as the fatal blow for his campaign in Iowa by Tuesday-morning campaign managers. If Dean does win, then the last-minute appearance of Judy Steinberg (or is it now, for political reasons, Dean nee Steinberg?) in Iowa will be credited as the factor he needed. Or something.

Okay, so how will things work tomorrow? Here's a quick breakdown.

Each precinct will elect a certain number of delegates who will attend the county conventions on March 13. The delegates are elected by supporters of certain candidates at the precinct level.

Although the delegates can be elected by a simple majority (and if only one delegate is to be elected, it must be done this way), it takes more than 85% of the caucusgoers to make that decision. So the "preference group" system is the usual way things work.

At the beginning of the caucus (after officers are elected, mission statements recited, etc.), the caucusgoers divide up into candidate preference groups (PG). There are two important rules to follow here: first, any preference group must meet a minimum membership that is based upon the number of delegates to be elected and the number of attending caucusgoers. If one delegate is elected, a simple majority vote is taken; if two delegates, a PG must have at least 25% of the attendees; if three, ~17% (1/6); four or more, 15%. If a PG doesn't meet that minimum level, the members of that PG must join another preference group until all PGs meet the minimum.

Second, there may only be as many PGs as there are delegates to elect, so if, for example, a three-delegate precinct has otherwise viable PGs for all four candidates, the smallest PGs will be forced to realign until there are as many viable PGs as delegates.

When these tests are met, each PG gets to elect a certain number of county delegates. The precise number is calculated by multiplying the number of PG members P by the number of delegates the precinct elects D, and dividing the result by the number of attendees A ( (P*D)/A ). The PGs then elect their delegates, who get to go to the county conventions on March 13 -- where, of course, yet another caucus is held.

At the county caucus level, each PG must meet a 15% threshold. Once all PGs are viable, the percentage of attendees each PG represents is multiplied by the number of district delegates the county is to elect (if there are more PGs than delegates, then "the preference group(s) with the largest fraction shall be awarded the delegate(s) in question," a bit of verbiage that is likely to trigger several different interpretations and a whole lot of argument in some caucuses).

Come April 24, the delegates elected from the county caucuses troop off to the district conventions, where they elect district-level national delegates. Finally, on June 12, the state convention handles cleanup by selecting at-large delegates, PLEOs, and so on.

Is this any way to choose 56 Democratic delegates? It's a Byzantine system, but the Hawkeye Caucuses seem to suit the state, which (along with New Hampshire) has elevated national retail politics to an almost absurd level. Just remember that whoever wins Iowa tomorrow may not actually win Iowa.