Clark cuts TV ad for Lamont

The Lamont campaign has just released an ad featuring General Wesley Clark in which Clark characterizes Lieberman's support for the Iraq war as a mistake. As a likely presidential candidate for '08, it surprises me that Clark would be doing an ad attacking Lieberman now. A month ago, when Lamont was polling within a few points of Lieberman and seemed to have the momentum, sure it makes sense. But to so publicly stand against Lieberman now that he appears to be pulling away... I'm just not sure I see the logic.

Control of the Senate is likely to hang by only one or two seats, giving Lieberman an innordinant amount of power as a closeted Republican who has historically been a member of the Democratic party and has said he will continue to caucus with the Democrats should he win re-election (although I don't know how much faith we should put in his promises at this point). Does a candidate like Clark, someone who's main challenge leading up to the primaries will be distinguishing himself from the non-Hillary pack, really want to piss off someone like Lieberman? Has Lieberman really become so persona non grata among Democrats that Clark thinks it will help in the primaries (it certainly won't help in the general, given Lieberman's high approval rating among Republicans)? Does he value netroots support that much? Is it strictly about positioning himself on Iraq?

Hillary (Rodham) Clinton for President?

According to a recent CNN poll, Hillary Rodham Clinton would defeat John McCain 51 percent to 44 percent, but Hillary Clinton would be defeated by John McCain 48 percent to 47 percent. The sample size for this poll was only 506, placing the results within the 4.5 percent margin of error. I don't know which is more ridiculous: that CNN is making a story out of a difference that falls within the margin of error or the possibility that the difference might be real. Will the mainstream media ever move away from covering politics like a horse race and actually force candidates to engage issues of substance?

Putting the party first

I wasn't a huge fan of Howard Dean as a presidential candidate, but I absolutely love him as the DNC chair. His focus on building the party for the future by strengthening the Democratic presence in EVERY state was a great first step towards building a long-term Democratic majority. Now, under Dean's guidance, the DNC has decided to shake up the presidential nominating calendar. The Nevada caucuses will be squeezed between Iowa and New Hampshire, with South Carolina coming shortly after those three. Apparently New Hampshire is threatening to ignore this decision and move up their primary.

Is it really so hard to accept a slight decrease in the influence of your state on selecting the party's nominee, even if it means a better chance for the nominee to win the election? I think the fact that politicians in New Hampshire and Iowa are getting so upset about these changes says a lot about the disproportionate amount of power given to states that get to hold their caucuses and primaries first. The way I see it, if the Democrats (or Republicans) want to get an edge for the REAL election, they should put aside the infighting and adopt a more sensible nomination process. Here are a couple ideas I would love to see implemented:

1. The order of the caucuses/primaries for each presidential election are determined by which states were closest in the previous presidential election. According to Wikipedia, we actually aren't doing too poorly by this measure. Maybe this could also be weighted by the number of electoral votes held by each state.
2. Hold all caucuses/primaries ON THE SAME DAY!

Both of these suggestions have the advantage of getting the candidates to focus on the most important states from the very beginning of the cycle. They still don't take into account the need to appeal to unaffiliated or swing voters, but I think either one would would be a hell of a lot better than the way we do it now.

While we're on the subject of selfish people ignoring the good of the party... for a former vice-presidential nominee, Lieberman sure doesn't show very much loyalty. None at all. On the other hand, John Edwards continues to make me even more excited about his all-but-confirmed candidacy in '08.