What D’s should do, in a positive way, is decide in the next primaries whether the D ticket should be Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama.

There’s no need here to analyze Edwards and Obama differences. We’re talking about two candidates who have the same goals with paradoxical approaches: in this case, we’re using "paradoxical" to mean that the two seem to have different approaches but really don’t. Obama can be strong out of a conciliatory approach honed in successful community organizing; Edwards can be strong out of an adversary approach honed in successful trial work. Both find their ways to the table where solutions are negotiated and both can make good judgment calls to win for their clients.

What is more remarkable about both of them is the admiring acceptance of their messages among some R voters as well as a lot of independent voters. With 2/3 of D’s having voted for them already, they'll have broad D support and pick up some independent and R votes.

On the other hand, Clinton, with only 1/3 of D support, despite the default vote of some older women, has alienated many R’s due to her polarizing style and her husband’s behavior. Where D’s, R’s, and I’s take Obama and Edwards at face value, they still suspect Clinton whether she speaks like a policy wonk or in her just-released "nice" version.

As it appears that R’s will opt for the authenticity of McCain after a nice show of support for the authenticity of Huckabee, let’s look at a Nov match up between OE (or EO) and McCain, perhaps McCain-Huckabee. (This puts a Southerner populist on both tickets, the dynamics of which can be skipped here for brevity.)

Both tickets will get a good hearing from voters because voters will trust their words if not always agree with them. To appreciate the importance of trust in an election, contrast this race to a Clinton-Romney race.

OE (or EO) versus McCain (and Huckabee) will be an uplifting race. Imagine what a Clinton race against McCain would be. Based on what we saw with her versus Obama recently, it was a somewhat trash campaign, the same as Bush 43 had in his 2000 SC campaign against McCain. This country very much needs the fresh air of a positive campaign.

In sum, Iowa voters have told us by 2-1 that the old days are over. D’s are seeing that only O or E, despite philosophical difference with R’s, can still win some R votes. Clinton, while not rallying new D voters, will rally R’s for McCain. Everyone from voters to consultants to donors can understand this.

More/Page 2 of 2

Often overlooked is that the powerful R "establishment", more like a cabal, looks for a candidate with whom it can deal with a knowing nod and who can be under their collective thumbs. McCain has been too independent for them; the populist Huckabee hasn’t been one of them in his politics. But they will have to settle for McCain, as the ones some of the cabal had hoped to find at the country club or corporate HQ deal tables - Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson - haven’t panned out.

What about Bloomberg as an independent candidate? In a year of desperation, voters might look for a billionaire to buy them out of electoral misery, such as Bush 41 and Clinton were in ’92 when Perot had his moment. I’m for independent efforts, but in an uplifting campaign with two good choices, voters will reasonably wonder why Bloomberg, if he and his backers thot he was so good, didn’t put himself in front of the voters earlier instead of dashing in late for a coronation in our great democracy.

<<<end>>>