A few last thoughts on the South Carolina Democratic Debate: Sharpton is absolutely right to question why for the poor to die for their country abroad is an "honor," but for the rich to pay taxes is a "burden," and to call for a less regressive payroll tax. I'm not sure what Dean was trying to pull off with his critique of Kerry's failed healthcare bills - it felt overly self-conscious and affected, even grasping. Kerry wasn't particularly smooth in responding, but came off better over all in that exchange. I wish I could say that Lieberman's touting welfare reform as the sort of "bipartisan accomplishment" he'd continue lost him my vote, but clearly he never had it in the first place. I do find it sad that the welfare system has been completely off the radar of these debates. I was glad to see Kerry get called on what Brooks called the "inner Moynihan" of some of his '90s rhetoric. He came off quite defensive responding to a statement of his on affirmative action, and preached fealty to the "mend it, don't end it" stance multiple times without allaying any fears about what kind of mending he plans to do.

Watching the Democratic Debate now. A couple thoughts so far: Somewhat should ask Joe Lieberman what it means to be "strong on values." Also, what it would mean to be weak on values, which of his competitors are weak on values, and whether the Bush administration could be characterized as "strong on values." Glad to see David Kay's charges getting some play here, given the way they've been underplayed by the media - or arguably overshadowed by the primaries. Dean is right to point the finger at Cheney, and Kerry did a deft job of avoiding either disputing or echoing his charge. I'm not sure what Edwards has in mind when he calls for a comission organized not by Congress but by "us, the people," although I'm all for it. Also, Edwards is in Congress too... Sharpton has joined Kucinich in calling for everyone to stay in for a long race to mobilize all their constituencies. I think there's a strong case for that. Also, he's right to point out that unlike John Edwards' dad, his couldn't have gotten a job as a mill worker.

My predictions for tomorrow: Kerry comes in first, simply because Dean hasn't had enough time to catch up after recovering from whatever combination of his combative stance in Iowa/ his overly-apologetic response to his combative stance in Iowa/ his insufficiently apologetic response to his combative stance in Iowa/ media harping on an imagined combative stance in Iowa/ some combination of the above one may choose to blame for the beating he took in the polls in the past week. Dean comes in second and he and Kerry both pitch themselves as comeback kids; Kerry as usual finds the media more credulous than Dean. Dean comes in closer to Kerry than to the Edwards, who comes in third behind him, lacking the committed and organized constituencies Kerry and Dean have mobilized. Clark does not much, if any, better than he's been expected to the past few days, and likely even worse - in any case drastically worse than he was expected to a few weeks ago before Kerry stole his part as the anointed "Anti-Dean" and his campaign fumbled and failed to advance a coherent vision or take advantage of what could have been a real head start to build a machine in New Hampshire. If Clark does particularly badly, he strikes me as more likely than any of the other candidates to drop out shortly after, thus ending further embarassment and leaving his Presidential run as a whimsical coda on what many see as an accomplished career as a military public servant. Lieberman does worse than Clark, claims that he exceeded expectations, and argues that Kerry and Dean are both soft on defense and that only he represents a real choice between extremists. Kucinich does much better than Sharpton.

The New Republic's Presidential endorsement offers no surprises: ...in their righteousness, Dean and his supporters have embraced an analysis potentially even more damaging than that of the party leaders they seek to depose...The problem with Dean's vision of the Democratic Party is more than electoral; it is intellectual and moral. And the candidate who offers the clearest, bravest alternative is Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman. In other words, first choice: Joe Lieberman. Second choice: George Bush.

Bob Kerrey writes an panegyric to the median voter theorem disguised as a call to political courage: So, show me the person, like Mr. Lieberman, who has angered a partisan Democratic audience with an unpopular idea and you have someone with what it takes to be our next president. And the next time you jump to your feet with applause for a candidate who says what you want to hear, remember that you may be leading them -- rather than the other way around. God forbid the agenda of a Democratic Presidential candidate should be influenced by Black people, poor people, the labor movement, and those other "special interests." Good thing after Kerrey lost the primary in 1992 we were saved from having the standard bearer of the Democratic party be someone who dismantles the values and institutions of the New Deal in the name of political maturity and sees leadership in turning away from the constituencies which represent the base of the party and its moral compass - oh, wait...

Back in New Haven for the year, and ready to bring some light and some truth to the Yale Corporation. Two and a half days until the strike deadline, and there's little in the way of signs of movement on Yale's end. Tomorrow morning at 10:30 will be a press conference calling on Yale to settle or submit to binding arbitration to avert a strike; it'll be headlined by Connecticut's own Joe Lieberman. I've never wasted many kind words on Joe Lieberman - I think his political record overall demonstrates a lack of courage masked in the rhetoric of bipartisanship and a disturbing conservatism masquerading as "moral clarity." One of my first posts on this site was a somewhat rambling but earnest criticism of Joe as he prepared to announce his candidacy for President of the United States. One of hte few virtues of a (happily, quite unlikely) Lieberman primary win would be a tremendous organizing spike for the Green party; it would, however, represent the final kiss and death for the Democratic party's organizing among its base (read: everyone to the left of the DLC), which - as much as some posts here might suggest otherwise - is not something I want to see. All of that said, it should be noted to Lieberman's credit that while he pursues an agenda in Congress generally deaf to the interests of the American people - including those of us in the Connecticut - he's frequently lended his symbolic support to much more progressive initiatives here on the local level. Damning by faint praise? Yes (also damning by harsh but deserved criticism). But Lieberman's support for David Lee's Yale Corporation candidacy, ECCO's sustainable housing work, and organized labor in New Haven - while deeply inadequate on the scale of the damage done by his work on the national level - should be noted among the few progessive moves for which he can be credited. Not coincidentally, these symbolic moves at home cost him very little with his neoconservative/ neoliberal sponsors and supporters on the national level.

The good news: Tom Daschle, proud appeaser and occasional whipping-boy, the man who promised Bush sixteen months ago that "he can depend on us," and is yet to sustain serious opposition to anything on George's wishlist - be it corpulent tax cuts for the rich, largesse and reward for oil companies drilling into our future, or the rush for devastating and unjust war - will not be running against him for President. Besides thinning the field and removing the prospect of a Daschle-Bush race, the decision carries with it the possibility - however hazy - of Daschle using his role in the Senate to construct something that could actually be construed as an opposition party. Too soon to tell. But given how little liberals have learned to expect from him, Daschle's coupling of his decision not to run with a strongly-worded attack on the Bush "stimulus" plan as one that would damage our ability to face our challenges as a nation was, at the very least, progress. The bad news: Can't say this one is any kind of surprise, or even news really. But (speaking of appeasers) brace yourself for that bastion of bipartisanship, Joe Lieberman, to announce his candidacy Monday. Our most recent reminder of Lieberman's political style came when Bill Frist, who, besides having belonged to an all-white club and joked that poor Black kids would stab him with pencils, is connected to the largest government fraud suit in US history, filed against a for-profit hospital firm whose agenda runs directly counter to those of the patients whose interests, as an MD, he's supposedly uniquely equipped to represent, was named to the Majority Leader post. What did Joe have to offer? Nothing but praise for Frist, excitement to work with him, and concern that "these kinds of positions" often become "more partisan" than necessary. God forbid (we know Joe likes talk about God) party leadership should be partisan. In other words, perhaps Bill Frist would like to follow the model of Tom Daschle. If anyone were to accuse Lieberman of being partisan, it certainly wouldn't be of being a partisan Democrat. This is the man who wants the government to monitor rap music for obscenity and academia for dissent, who said that the moral degradation of our society could be measured by the height of the wall between church and state, the darling of the DLC, the poster-child for the jingoism and double-standards which claim the ironic title of "moral clarity," the man who saw fit to flirt with social security privatization, with tort reform, with ending affirmative action - the list goes on. Much attention surrounded Lieberman in 2000 as the first Jewish candidate on a "major party" ballot. The man also had a shot at "first Jewish Republican on a Democratic ticket," but that one doesn't sell quite as well. Were I running the RNC (that'll be the day), and were Lieberman to run as the Democratic candidate for President in 2004, I might just push, in the spirit of bipartisanship, for my party not to run a candidate.