John McCain is clearly the most formidable candidate the Republicans could nominate in 2008, and Romney's bruising defeat in Iowa last night, along with the media's cheerleading, could make this unpleasant prospect a reality. I would be more worried about a McCain nomination if he hadn't accepted public financing, however.

I keep noticing that journalists and even some political operatives think candidates can "skip" the first few primaries and still be competitive for the nomination. Both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani have been running around for months saying that they can lose Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and still be the frontrunner because they have huge leads on the February 5 mega-tuesday primaries. With their typical vapidity, pundits have written that if Barack or Romney sweep the early states, they'll "have a chance" at toppling the national frontrunners. The most egregious example of this treatment right now is Florida, which both Clinton and Giuliani have been treating as a "firewall" - where they have a huge lead that will act to break any momentum by their rivals and secure them victory going into February 5's national primary day.

To which I say: what a bunch of hooey.

Since the primaries are going to start and end very soon, I'd like to toss out a thought I had about them the other day. Like many people, I've been frustrated with what I see as vapid coverage by the national press corps, which has an alarming ability to make or break candidates at the national level. What's interesting is that the press can't do this in Iowa and New Hampshire. Say what you like about the arbitrary selection of these two states, or their lack of representativeness, but at least some folks somewhere get to see the candidates up close without a crazy D.C. media filter.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that those of us who assail the mainstream media and ALSO attack the privileged position of Iowa and New Hampshire might have contradictory positions.

Everybody's mad at the Democratic majority in Congress for passing war funds. The game has been played all year, and it's as dispiriting as it is predictable: Democrats threaten, Bush calls bluff, Democrats cave and give him his money. The cynical analysis would be that Pelosi and Reid, or perhaps just the timorous Blue Dogs, are too afraid of the being attacked for "not supporting the troops", that they're still hypnotized by the debacle of the 2002 midterms.

But there is a more charitable interpretation of what's happening: that Democrats in Congress know what the next move in the game would be. Let's imagine it, shall we? If the Democrats zero out war funding, the assumption is that Bush would have to bring the troops home. But this is only an assumption, isn't it? What's to prevent Bush from not issuing the necessary orders? If the troops remained anyway, they'd be trapped in Iraq with no supplies and would doubtlessly suffer a sharp increase in attacks, and thus additional casualties.

In the crass political sense, Bush could very easily pin the blame on the Democrats for "not supporting the troops," a narrative that would be aided and abetted by his tame press corps. And from a moral perspective, the Congress would have been indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands <span style="font-style:italic;">more</span> American lives. It wouldn't be fair, of course. Bush would be engaging in blackmail, holding U.S. forces in Iraq hostage for political gain. And anyone who doesn't think Bush would do something so reckless and destructive simply hasn't been paying attention.

While Barack Obama has been rising in the polls - and now seems to have a reasonable chance to win the Democratic nomination - at the same time he's giving a lot of liberals heartburn. When Obama first emerged, he seemed like a candidate with tremendous potential, and I suppose he still is. I was excited not just because he was the first African-American with a chance at the presidency, but because he's a brilliant orator who uses appeals to idealism and national unity to justify liberalism.

I haven't been one of those who saw Liebermanesque posturing in his statements about bipartisanship, rather I saw it as an effort to broaden the liberal coalition - which is, after all, what you need to do to create a real political majority. His support for coal liquefaction I ascribed to his representation of Illinois. His health care plan lacked a personal mandate, but that didn't bother me, because I have serious questions about the political viability of such an approach, as well as skepticism that the subsidies for lower & middle income people would be sufficient. (By the way, the Massachusetts plan has been struggling for the very reasons I articulated here). And finally I think lifting the income cap on the payroll tax paying for Social Security is probably a good idea.

But Krugman and Ezra Klein (although I disagree with them on the individual mandate), are right about one thing - Obama's rhetoric on these issues has been bizarre. Why focus on Social Security at all, since it's not really a big problem? Why attack health care plans that have mandates, rather than say why your approach is better? And why in the world would your campaign attack Paul Krugman??

Chris Bowers has some funny ideas.

Bowers envisions a new black-"creative class" alliance in the Democratic Party to wrest control from the current "Democratic Party Establishment." He defines those in the creative class as non-christian (secular? educated?) whites, who with the added support of African-Americans would be able to win Democratic primaries. Bowers saw Barack Obama as the possible architect of this coalition, and is very disappointed by Obama's indifference to the "netroots."

I think I know what Bowers is getting at. Howard Dean, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, etc.  - all the good-government liberal reformers who have run for the Democratic nomination have been undone in part because of their inability to win black votes. Black voters, while quite liberal, or liberal in a very specific way: like union voters and seniors, they are very much aware of their own economic and social interests, and vote accordingly. This is a tale that has been told throughout 2007 - "that Barack is having trouble winning over traditional Democratic constituencies because he talks about abstractions rather than concrete interests. Hillary, like her husband, or Walter Mondale, or Al Gore in 2000, appealed very explicitly to union and african-american interests, and were rewarded with their political support.

Barack Obama is a fascinating politician. A dazzlingly eloquent orator, community organizer, viable black candidate, and a pure enigma. He's a riddle that many liberals are trying to solve, myself among them.

I've read his 2nd book (although not yet his first), watched all of his major speeches, read the biographical pieces, and considered his candidacy for months. I have ultimately narrowed the possibilities down to two: the Little Obama and the Big Obama.

Do you remember when the U.S. used to make stuff? Y'know, things other than houses (built with illegal immigrant labor) and fast food?

Neither do I.