With that out of the way, on with the show. Liz Cheney in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal tries to wipe the court with Obama because he chatted up Cold War history to a bunch of Russian students. Obama was in Moscow to talk trade, weapons reduction and agreement to US weapon transports via Russian soil.

You can read the op-ed yourself, so I’m not going to repeat it here again. Suffice it to say that Liz Cheney, daughter of That Man Who, As Vice-President, Ran Illegal Secret Operations As An Elected Official While Withholding Information To Congress, thinks that Obama should have given the Russian students an earful about how bad the Soviet Union was. How it mistreated its own civilians, and the countries it ran through puppet regimes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

It’s all true. The USSR was led by a bunch of no-good criminals that occupied nations as the criminals saw fit, invaded countries whenever it wanted to, and also invented the Lada car (THEY DID!? Jesus!- ed).

But that still doesn’t mean that some president of another country should barge into a classroom while on an official visit, and start talking down the country of the present students in no uncertain terms, like Cheney suggests Obama should have done.

Why? Easy. Turn the tables. Suppose Russian president Medvedev visits Washington, and after all the niceties and photo ops he walks into a classroom and starts reminding the kids there that America was, at times, actually a pretty damn nasty country. Something about wiping out the native peoples, invading countries (Mexico comes to mind), meddling in internal affairs of just about every nation on the American continent (something about a ‘Monroe Doctrine’), Vietnam, and of course the pet project of Lizzie’s dad: Iraq.

I can already imagine the headlines, even in The New York Times. It would be universally condemned – by everyone. It is just something you don’t do in diplomacy. Liz Cheney should know that, but she doesn’t, because she’s obviously crazy. Still, she actually worked in the State Department. When? Oh, when #43 was in power.

“Oh, right…” indeed.

And then Cheney has the gall of accusing Obama of not knowing his history. On what does she base this? Well, she accuses Obama of having said that the United States of America is much like, well, any other nation on this earth.

On the so-called ‘American Exceptionalism’, a contradiction in terms anyway, Obama apparently said: “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

Oh my. Astonishing, isn’t it?! Just imagine, that huge patch of land with rivers and mountains and rocks and trees and mice and bears and grass and cars and buildings and houses and sewage and electricity and a thriving porn industry in between Canada and Mexico is much like, well, the country you live in! It’s just that they probably talk a different language, have a different flag, sing a different national hymn, and are madly in love with their television sets while they elect into office people who can name the first six letters of the alphabet. (Okay, the last one was really a bad joke, we elect idiots too.)

But no. Obama’s wrong, Cheney says. America is actually The Best Country In The World™, better than all other countries on this planet, and all the world should bow before the American King as he sits on his throne and picks his nose.

Well, read this, missus ‘I know history’ Cheney. The Brits thought they were exceptional, and you lot got so fed up with it that you fought them for years to kick ‘em out. But it didn’t take you guys too long before you started acting exactly like they did, now did you?

But hey. If you personally say that you’re exceptional, I actually can’t argue with that. You’re a Republican, after all, and I hear that that breed is growing more exceptional every day.

If anything, it is a correction, a very logical reaction to a process started in 2000, when a true ‘lurch to the right’ was rammed down the electorate’s throat. Obama’s election is a belated response to the election of Bush.

Each action begets a reaction. A positive action usually begets a positive response – and a negative action more often than not elicits a negative reaction.

On some network during election night, some analyst at some point voiced his astonishment about “how America seems to be abandoning its history of centrist politics”. I was appalled; here was a guy whose name I had never heard of, but who was a full-time paid analyst, and who somehow missed that in 2000, a man who said that he would unite the country, who promised that he was not a divider, started an ideological divide the likes of which no one had seen since the days of Barry Goldwater.

George W. Bush veered off wildly to the extreme right, on a quest to appease only the ultra-conservative, yes even extreme wing of the Republican religious wingnuts. In 2004, when so many people already had enough of that lurch that came to them like a thief in the night, many were swayed to vote for Bush again out of fear for terrorists. Bush was re-elected by the thinnest of margins.

That should have humbled him, but it didn’t.

Where was Fred Barnes of the Wall Street Journal back in those days, in 2000 and 2004, to accuse America of ‘lurching to the right‘? Robert Novak, on the day after the election of Barack Obama, wrote that Obama has “no mandate”. By the time of this writing, Obama has 349 votes in the electoral college.

What constitutes a “landslide” in Robert Novak’s dimension? Or even a mandate? Where was Novak in 2000 and 2004, to accuse Bush of not having a mandate, even though Bush had barely eeked out a win with 286 seats in 2004 – and even after having to resort to calling in the aid of the Supreme Court in 2000?

The answer is, of course, that Barnes and Novak felt pretty much at ease with whatever Bush was doing. But in 2008, a vast majority of the US electorate felt that they had to change course. The ship had veered off too much to starboard.

So the voters voted for a correction, and bringing the country back on course. If anything, the change Obama is seeking doesn’t seem too radical. Yes, universal health care is, in light of US history, a historical and possibly even ‘radical’ departure from the (supposedly) centrist course. But as for the rest of his platform, I’m convinced that not the slogan ‘change we can believe in’ but rather ‘a return to the way we were’ would have been more to the point.

What is so terrible about that? I wish Barnes and Novak would read this, and answer that question.

But they won’t. It’s probably a good thing that Obama’s quest for ‘new, uniting politics’ can do without the likes of Barnes and Novak. I wish them well while they lower themselves into the dustbin of history, where ‘old politics’ has been languishing for a good 24 hours already.

Let there be no doubt that apathy because of the colour of your skin, or because of where you’re from, is no longer an option. Let there be no doubt: all that has changed with Barack Obama’s election.
Let there also be no doubt that, when Obama said that “a new dawn of American leadership is at hand” in his victory speech, the world has changed in the past 8 years. The United States of America is no longer the one superpower that remained after the fall of the Soviet Union. If the current crisis has shown Americans one thing, it should be the realization that Ameríca’s economy is intertwined with the rest of the world, that it is no longer the undisputed leader that stands alone on a mountain top. And let there be no doubt that, indeed, political power no longer grows out of the barrel of a gun.

But let there also be no doubt: the world will never be the same again. Other players have entered the top of the game, thanks to – ironically – the lack of leadership displayed by the US during the past 8 years. To assume that America can regain its position of world leadership of yore, is a fantasy. Instead, America must work together with other nations, the other leaders that rose when America turned its back on the world for eight long years.

Let there be no doubt that America must again learn what responsibility is, and that America must show that responsibility. Barack Obama said he wants to “turn the page”. That is a welcome goal. But he mustn’t only turn the page on 8 years of George W. Bush, he must also turn the page on Bill Clinton, and all presidents before him.

Let America show that it is willing to change. Ratify the follow-up to the Kyoto Treaty, which neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton wanted. Sign and ratify the moratorium on land mines, on chemical weapons, on biological weapons, on the development of new nuclear weapons.

Let there be no doubt that America must walk the talk.

Lecture other countries about their ethical behaviour by improving America’s own ethical behaviour. Lecture by action, heal the damage done. When America demands of nations that they agree to stop producing chemical weapons and must allow international inspections for verification, America must allow those same inspectors to check American factories. When America demands of European countries that they abolish farm subsidies, let America abolish its own.

Support the International Crimes Tribunal. Repeal the ‘The Hague invasion act’. Become a nation among nations. Understand that there is not just one country on this planet, but that there is only one planet. And make other countries understand this, too. Again, by actions, not by lecturing.

“The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from our ideals”, Obama said. How I wish that were true.

The true strength of nations comes from their willingness to work together, by carefully appropriating the might of their arms and the scales of their wealth, not as goals unto themselves, but as tools with which to promote shared ideals.

Wednesday will see the start of the post-election coverage. Some pundits, including me, have already been ‘previewing’ an Obama presidency. There will be a LOT more coverage on that once the horse race is over, and journalists and pundits like me will have the time on their hands to take a second – no, third – forget that, fourth – awww shucks, n-th look at president-elect Barack Obama.

And I’m getting a little worried, because Obama continues to make some of the same mistakes Clinton made. Like pissing off the press mightily by sealing himself off. Sure, he’s available for soft, controlled question sessions, but the last time he held a big press conference was on September 12.

Whenever a reporter asks a question, Obama reacts with an arrogant demeanor. He needs to stop that.

Journalists are never your friends, that’s true – but you also don’t want to make them your enemies. Ask Bill Clinton, and how he felt the press treated him for almost his entire first term.

When Bill Clinton beat contender George H.W. Bush in 1992 and entered the White House, he had everything going for him. He won many ‘Red States’, giving him a solid mandate and a lot of political capital, and he had a Democratic Congress and Senate to boot. Nothing could stop him from rolling out a true Democratic political programme.

Boy, was he wrong.

Guess who stopped him? That’s right: his friends, the Democrats in Congress. When Hillary Clinton went straight for the Holy Grail of Democratism, namely the establishment of Universal Health Care, she behaved like a wild elephant in a porcelain cabinet, crashing and thrashing everything inside. The Republicans managed to sell her plans as being ‘Socialist’ or even ‘Communist’, in the states where incumbent Democratic Senators and Representatives had to defend their seats.

So when majorities of voters in those states came out against Clinton’s health care plans, incumbent Democrats made an about-turn. They wanted changes to the plans. When Hillary Clinton refused, those Democrats – fearful of losing their well-paid daytime job in Washington, D.C. – voted down the plans.

By then, the midterm elections of 1994 were upon them, and the health care debacle was used by the Republicans as paint to colour the Democrats as closet Socialists. That, combined with scandals surrounding some Democrats and a highly effective Republican propaganda campaign, resulted in a ‘Republican Revolution’ that swept away Democratic rule from Capitol Hill for 20 years.

Faced with a hostile Congress, Bill Clinton had to abandon his strategic plans and focus on tactical gains instead. He could no longer win the war for Democratic causes, but could at least try to win some public battles, in order to be re-elected and save his presidency, and thus his legacy. He succeeded for a while — until Monica Lewinsky showed her appetite for cigars, of course.

Fast-forward to 2009. Barack Obama will enter the White House as a Democratic president, very likely backed up by a strong Democratic majority in Congress. Like Clinton, Obama also wants to finally establish Universal Health Care and he will need Congress to sign off on it, too.

The question is: will it?

So far, the similarities between now and 1992 are striking. Just like in those days, there already are so-called ‘Blue Dog Democrats’ in Congress, Democrats hailing from solid Republican ‘Red States’ who will have a hard time convincing their constituencies that a collective public, government programme is not ‘Socialist cockamamie’.

And those are just the incumbent ones. Many more, from even more ‘Red States’, are set to join their ranks on November 4, when Republicans seem set to be ousted in large numbers, in favour of conservative Democrats.

In 1992, when Bill Clinton made introduction of Universal Health Care one of his priorities in his campaign, he failed to get many Representatives and Senators to publicly back that cause before his election. So when he was inaugurated, few members of Congress felt obliged to sign up for his health care plans.

Barack Obama has so far held several meetings with incumbent members of Congress on matters like national security, social security and the economy, but he has thus far failed to get a public commitment from them on his health care plans. He also hasn’t asked first-time contenders in the Red States, who seem to be sailing to victory, to sign up.

That could spell trouble. It would be very wise for Obama to get those public commitments now, also from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, before the election is held. It is very important that at least those plans finally get turned into law, because the financial crisis, the deep recession and the enormous damage done by the criminal Republican administation, will already put a strain on Obama’s treasury.

He will have to make some tough choices, ditching some plans to save others. But it could very well be that ditching his universal health care plans – one way or the other – will force him to make the same decision Clinton made: abandoning the war in favour of winning some battles.

Napoleon Bonaparte made that decision during the difficult years of 1813 and 1814, and he lost the war. Just like Bill Clinton did. Let’s hope that Obama is the smarter one.

So it was refreshing to see Nichols criticizing Obama for a change in an article pasted here, but unfortunately, Nichols missed the mark. He was right to criticize Obama, but for the wrong reason.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain are right: more troops are needed in Afghanistan, but with one unifying mandate, not two different ones that cancel each other out. As is currently the case.

So I wrote Mr Nichols an email. To which he didn’t respond, of course.

Dear Mr Nichols,

I read your article on the commitments Mr Obama made to Afghan leaders, on TheNation.com.

Fine article, good read, but I felt that some points were missing.

Like many people, you correctly state that there’s too much fighting going on, and not much building.

But that’s exactly the problem; the deployment to Afghanistan has become a chicken-or-the-egg dilemma.

As you know, the American troops are basically on a fighting mission named ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’, in Afghanistan. Their mandate is combat, and only combat.

Then there’s NATO’s ISAF, that has a very different mandate for the troops. ISAF is confined to (re)building, nation building, etc.

All good and well, but all the Afghans and the Taleban see are Western military uniforms.

Aside from that, the Taleban are very effective in applying what is basically an African tribal strategy. Instill fear, fear and fear among the civilian population, and ensure that the (re)building effort by NATO fails.

Their tactics are horrendous, and well documented by Dutch soldiers, who have been in Afghanistan since the start.

The biggest frustration of Dutch soldiers is that whenever they build a school or small hospital in a small rural town, the Taleban usually sneak into the town after the Dutch have left, and then raze the schools and hospitals. Those who have cooperated with the Dutch are killed, and often their entire families as well. They are public executions; young boys and girls are hanged up on their feet, so upside down, and then gutted, like one would with a cow. The warning is clear to the villages in close proximity: this is what happens to you when you cooperate with ISAF.

Dutch soldiers are now being spurned by local Afghan leaders. They would like to cooperate, but they say they can’t, because the Dutch (and other forces) won’t always be there to protect them.

In the beginning, ISAF troops made the error of promising Afghans that they were safe from the Taleban, that they’d be protected. Years of experience has shown the Afghans that those promises are empty.

And to Afghans, he who controls an area, rules that area. It’s that simple.

Another problem is the ISAF mandate. NATO troops are in Afghanistan, yes, but they’re there under a tight mandate. They are in principle not allowed to undertake offensive action against (known) Taleban forces. They are allowed to defend themselves, and the civilian population, but that’s it.

Dutch Special Forces have now taken to baiting tactics; they try to attract enemy fire, by for instance sending a lone jeep with soldiers into a known ‘hot zone’ and then faking that the jeep has a breakdown. Taleban spotters, often civilians whose family members have been taken hostage by the Taleban and so forced to enroll into their ranks, then go into action. All they usually do is call in the location of the jeep – but the talk via open walkie-talkie radio is then intercepted by the Dutch, the location of the civilian spotter located, and he is subsequently killed.

The Taleban then later show up, collect the remains, and present them to the inhabitants of the killed civilian’s town, exclaiming the perverse violence of the ISAF troops.

A couple of months ago, a Dutch TV programme comparable to ’60 Minutes’ found out that Dutch troops had started undertaking offensive action, to flush out the Taleban that had been systematically razing schools and hospitals in towns. The broadcast caused a political outcry. As a result, the Dutch forces are now back to full defensive ISAF duty. And they’re frustrated, because the results of their rebuilding efforts are nil.

This is happening throughout ISAF-‘controlled’ territory. Taleban attacks on the civilian population and ISAF troops are up. The number of hospitals, schools and medical posts in villages being razed is up. Production of poppies, the sale of which is probably the Taleban’s main source of income, is up by record numbers. And the ISAF troops are, by their mandate, not allowed to do anything about it.

Then Operation Enduring Freedom. US forces are fighting the Taleban hard, but there are two problems.

1) the population of the villages they half destroy while bombing Taleban troops who purposely take up positions in those villages, are VERY unlikely to aid the Americans and be anti-Taleban, and
2) the Taleban are constantly withdrawing to Pakistan, where GIs can’t touch them. (Eerily reminiscent of the VietCong’s retreat tactics into Laos and Cambodia.)

So US forces are doing something that the ISAF can’t – fighting offensive – but not doing what they should be doing after the fighting, which in turn is what ISAF is doing.

There are two main strategic problems.
1. Geographic divide. There are areas where the NATO ISAF troops simply are not allowed to operate.
This is Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) territory. This results in OEF GIs flushing out the Taleban from a village, and then moving on, with no ISAF troops following up to do the rebuilding – and staying there for a while to ensure that Taleban troops don’t sneak back in. Plus: Pakistan.

2. Mandate divide. As shown, the two operations have very different mandates. Problem is, if you change the ISAF mandate to allow for offensive (i.e., more risky) actions, most NATO countries will pull back their troops. (The Dutch had to extend their ISAF mandate period because no other NATO country wanted to send troops to replace the Dutch.)

The only way to solve this:
- ONE mandate, for all forces in Afghanistan.
- MORE troops, to ensure that newly built infrastructure (which is why ISAF’s there, for Christ’s sake!) isn’t immediately razed after the troops depart.

So far, both Obama’s and McCain’s proposals fall short of the mandate-thing.

Without thinking, fearing that competitors would outrun them, Politico.com simply copied the story, without checking the facts. Later on, when the reporters did get to check the facts, they found out how slanted the story was.

So John F. Harris, a renowned reporter and co-editor of Politico.com, put up an apologetic article. Or so it seemed, because the article is hardly apologetic. If only it had been!

Call me whatever you want, but I could not resist writing Harris an email to explain how appalled I was.

Here it is, in full:

‘Dear Mr Harris,

I’m an avid reader of Politico, and I enjoyed your “The Way To Win:2008″ book
(with Halperin) very much.

But I’m also a journalist, and I thought your article ‘How small stories become big
news’ hair raising.

There is one scene in your article which I found particularly painful.

You describe how Jonathan Martin was “furiously typing away”, explaining to you what Clinton had said. Later on, you write that “Martin himself knew about Clinton’s remarks from the New York tabloid’s story”.

So let me get this straight: Martin wrote his story solely based on what he’d read on the NYP’s site? Or did he check another, less partisan source to back up the story?

And – the horror, the horror! – only after publishing the story on your site, did you and Martin sit down to see what Clinton actually said on the Argus video?

Seriously: are you guys journalists, or are you just automated copywriting machines?

Here is what I think truly happened, but what you fail (yet should have the honesty) to admit:

1.Politico violated Rule Number One from the Book of Journalism: one source is no source.

2.And even then the one source you did quote, was not one of the more objective news media. The New
York Post is not exactly a friend of Clinton, or anyone Democratic.

So it seems that, as you wrote it, you allowed Politico.com to report the “story” with the NYP’s (very much anti-Clinton, anti-Democratic) slant.

The NYP took one sentence, ripped it from it’s context completely, and started bashing Clinton with
it.

By basically copying what they wrote, you became part of the NYP’s agenda.

I think you’ve got your priorities all wrong. Sure, you’re looking for traffic but if you guys are writing the same stories all the others are writing, then what’s your unique selling point?

Trust me, there’s a huge audience out there that’s dying to read the stories based on facts, and on a neutral (well, as neutral as possible…) website.

I for one will, from now on, always have to second guess Politico. Who or what is the source of the stories? Did they check them before they put them up on the site?

There’s hardly a non-partisan news outlet left in America today. If I can’t trust Politico, who do I trust?”

Of course, I’m still waiting for a reply. Naturally, I realise full well that I’m just one blogger, out of the millions out there, and I’m sure that the email server of Politico.com was smoking in the hours after Harris put up his article.

But surely, the points I made in the email are valid?

And guess what? Zogby et al are already polling an Obama win in California.

So forget Iowa, the Clintons are going after New Hampshire. Bill Clinton in the past few days has within the campaign thumped on the importance of New Hampshire for everything Clinton ever since his second-place ending in the state in the 1992 Democratic nomination campaign. That pivotal feat revived his campaign and kick-started his succesful run for the presidency.

As Alex MacGill of the Washington Post pointed out in this excellent report, the Clintons have cultivated their ties to the state ever since, so much so that New Hampshire is seen as almost synonymous to Clinton’s destiny and political standing among pundits, commentators and — yes — national media journalists. Because of the state’s importance and the significance the Clintons themselves always attributed to it, losing that state in the primary would make Hillary Clinton’s star fade faster than you can say “implosion”.

And so the game that is being played for New Hampshire is one of expectations. Since Bill Clinton’s succesful run for the presidency, New Hampshire has always been high up the political expectations ladder, whilst Iowa — where he never campaigned — was mostly off the pundits’ radar screen when it came to the political fortunes of the Clintons.

In 1992, Iowa senator Tom Harkin had such a strong local following for his nomination campaign that Clinton was smart enough to not even bother trying to get caucus votes there, and in 1996 he didn’t need Iowa. But unfortunately for Bill Clinton, whose reputation is pretty much on the line now that his wife is campaigning for the presidency, the Hillary campaign has put considerable importance on Iowa, so much so that expectations are running high.

And if there is one thing Bill Clinton dislikes, for all his political mastery, it is uncertainty, and Iowa has become a huge question mark. The campaign has realised that all the extra efforts in Iowa of late have been too little, and definitely too late. Hillary Clinton has simply been unable to stem the Obama tide in the unpredictable midwestern state. And even though Hillary’s team pounces on each individual Iowa poll that shows Hillary one or two percent ahead of Obama, the campaign knows full well that the majority of polls are showing the reverse picture.

And so the new strategy will be as follows. Bill Clinton is still probably the single, most popular politician in New Hampshire. Thus, the coming weeks shall see Bill and Hillary — but especially Bill — tour New Hampshire while ensuring as much local media coverage as possible. Hillary will be projected as a Clinton once again bringing the message of ‘change’, much like her husband succesfully did in 1992. Realising the mistake made in Iowa, where there was a big disconnect between Hillary and Iowans, the campaign will get down to the good old nitty-gritty of traditional campaigning, including having her go door-to-door, which she has already started doing.

Meanwhile, the campaign will start what the Russians would call a ‘maskirovska’-campaign, or masking; having everybody believe that they’re still going full-steam for a win in Iowa, while in reality they aren’t. The goal is no longer to win in Iowa but to force Obama to concentrate most of his resources there while the secondary goal is to try to come in second, above Edwards. Look for Bill Clinton and other surrogates to start talking down the importance of Iowa in the last week or so before the caucus there takes place, while at the same time becoming New Hampshire cheerleaders.

As I write this, pundits seem to be missing that Edwards’s star appears to be fading, blinded as they are by focusing entirely on the brutal violence of the Clinton-Obama battles, which obviously makes for good headlines. By doing so, they are missing out on the one factor that is likely to decide the Democratic Party’s nomination: the approximately 10 to 15% of the Democratic primary and caucus Edwards-votes that would be up for grabs by either Clinton or Obama, should the former Senator from North Carolina decide to give in.

His campaign will deny it until the very last second of the Iowa caucus, but as January 3 comes closer the issue will slowly but surely be pushed to the forefront. There’s a big chance that Edwards will come in not second but third in Iowa, and the polls in New Hampshire and South Carolina do not look very good either. There’s an equally big chance he will lose in those two states as well, and since his campaign was obviously based on coming in on top in Iowa, where he has been campaigning virtually non-stop since 2004, the loss in Iowa is likely to destroy his entire nomination campaign.

When that happens, Edwards has two choices. Either stay in the campaign, knowing that after losing in Iowa, the press will ignore him completely as they focus even more on ‘Clinton versus Obama’. In fact, chances are that he will move to the back pages of the newspapers, amid the Britney Spears and Amy Winehouse freakshow. His ego won’t be able to stand much of that ridicule, which will also virtually guarantee that he stands no chance of getting the vice-president nod from whoever wins the nomination. (Edwards isn’t coveting that position anyway.)

So the second, only rational and face-saving choice would be to throw the hat into the ring almost immediately after the Iowa caucus results come in (providing, of course, that he finishes third) and thus before the New Hampshire primary, which is held 2 days after the Iowa caucus. And if he does, then the question is whether Edwards will endorse another candidate. As Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd are seen dropping out quite quickly after their Iowa loss as well, it stands to reason that Edwards will have to choose between Obama and Clinton. Who of the two is he likely to endorse?

It is no secret that the Clintons have always held somewhat of a special place in their calculating hearts for Edwards; if anything, they were closer to him than to Obama. Bill Clinton has at times hinted that he backed John Edwards more than he did John Kerry during the presidential campaign of 2004 and there is no reason to think that Edwards has forgotten about that support. Naturally the Edwards and Clinton campaigns have traded barbs every now and then in the run-up to the nomination campaign of this cycle, but these were more superficial than anything hard-hitting.

However, despite those warm feelings for each other, one of Edwards’s nomination campaign themes has been ‘change’, not ‘continuity’ in the shape and form of extending the Clinton dynasty. So in that respect, and when purely looking at Edwards’s platform, perhaps a choice for Obama instead of Clinton would be more logical for Edwards. But then Edwards’s platform places much more emphasis on the ‘One America’ theme, invoking the image of an increasingly deeper rift between the rich and the poor, which (until recently) wasn’t one of Obama’s main platform themes.

Perhaps the answer lies in the kind of voters Edwards is popular with. Edwards has always been trying to reach out to unions and voters in the lower to lower-midde-class income brackets. His target audience therefore has a lot of overlap with Clinton’s, whose campaign has also been reaching out to unions and other representative organisations. Another target audience is women, which are quite obviously also a Clinton target. Another main overlapping theme that recently attracted voters to the Edwards camp was his plan for a national health insurance, which looks more like Clinton’s plan than Obama’s. Edwards has also criticised Obama’s plan more than he has Clinton’s.

But even though there is a lot of overlap, there is also a reason why so many people have been rooting for Edwards ever since Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy: a lot of Edwards voters simply don’t like Clinton. More often than not, Edwards voters are disgusted at the idea of having to vote for Clinton during the national election. Still, though, if they don’t want a Republican taking the White House again, they know they’ll have to as regardless of what polls and pundits are saying now, chances are that the presidential election is going to be very, very close again, just like in 2000 and 2004. If Edwards himself then implores them to vote for Clinton durong the nomination process, it might just be enough to decisively tilt the balance in her favour.

However, regardless of all these rational parameters, the decision lies entirely with Edwards personally. It is the second time that he is seeking presidential office, first as the Democratic vice-president nominee and now as a candidate for the top job. Losing out once is painful, losing twice is a disaster in political terms, not just because of the loss of face in the public arena (resulting in a lot less support should he ever try to run for president again), but perhaps even more because of the sense of personal failure.

If and when he gets to take a decision, he will know from private polls provided by his campaign that some of his voters in the last weeks of the Iowa campaign moved to the Obama-camp because of the ‘Anybody But Clinton’-vote that holds sway among the more leftist Democratic activists, and the inevitable ‘Oprah-mojo’ of the Obama campaign. Yet some of his voters will also have crossed the bridge (back) to the Clinton camp — the voters that are afraid that Obama is indeed too unexperienced to stand up to the Republican Character Assassination Machine in a national election.

And when deciding whether he should take a decision at all, there is another factor that will certainly be on his mind, which is: securing an important role in the Democratic party in the future. Edwards is someone who thrives in the spotlight; it’s a gene he seems to share with Bill Clinton. By simply accepting defeat and walking away, he will also walk out of many people’s minds, forever tainted as a loser.

The mere thought is anathema to Edwards. He understands that making a choice for one of the two candidates will at least ensure him a spot in the Democratic pantheon and who knows, perhaps he will be invited for an important position in Obama’s or Clinton’s administration. If not that, then White House support while running for governor of North Carolina would certainly help.

With all that in mind, and looking at the national polls in which Clinton still has a double-digit lead over Barack Obama in the nomination process and also leads possible Republican opponents in most polls, Edwards would be hard-pressed to give the nod to Obama instead of Clinton.