This is the Republican front runner in Iowa? Man, do the not have a candidate.

Three different polls, three different leaders. What does this mean? That there is no calling Iowa, even two weeks away. Also, that it seems less and less likely that it will mean anything.

One other thing: it should be a law that when poll numbers are given, the margin for error is prominently displayed. The InsiderAdvantage poll does a good job of this, mentioning the margins for both the Democratic and Republican polls. Think about what a 3% margin means for the poll: Edwards could actually be as low as 27%, with Clinton at 29%, in the lead of the broader poll. The Washington Post kept theirs in the last paragraph, where you know to look for it, although it was on the second page on their website, making it slightly less likely to be read. Rassmussen does not list a margin for error, although they do publish some pretty interesting demographics of their sample.

Just over three weeks until the Iowa caucus, and there are two new front runners, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. A win in Iowa would be big for Obama, but not the knockout supporters may try to portray it to be. Really, the only major Democrat with anything to lose in Iowa is John Edwards, because all of his money is in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Iowa's his best shot.

As for Huckabee, he has kind of bubbled up, and now the backlash has begun (for example, in 1992, he said that AIDS patients should be sequestered from the general public, and won't fully back off that position). He plays well among the religious conservatives that make up a large percentage of Iowa Republicans. The question is, will he play well with the religious conservatives that make up a large percentage of Republicans everywhere else? Probably, yes, but that may not be enough to put him in the White House. The pool of undecideds may have trouble warming up to someone who so pointedly identifies himself as a Christian leader (the title leads his first television ads). He also lacks a top-rate organization, and money.

Another interpretation is that Huckabee is doing well because he isn't Mitt Romney, who did well in Iowa because he isn't Rudy Giuliani. This would reinforce one of the early impressions of the race, that the Republicans don't have a candidate. Anyone that the caucus- and primary-going types would like would lose a general election, and vice versa. If that is all true, then Fred Thompson is your Iowa winner.

One thing that the Republicans have going for them is the fact that no one has been elected president directly from the Senate since John Kennedy in 1960. The top Democrats are current or recent ex-senators, while the Republicans boast two governors, the mayor of a city larger than many states, one senator and a fake district attorney.

I would like to reprint here an excerpt from an interview with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on ABC's This Week. In the previous segment, senator and Democratic hopeful Joe Biden had called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate the destruction of videotapes of torture sessions. Gingrich was then asked if he agreed with Biden's call, and gave this reply:

         "I think that's exactly wrong, just because special councils are a nightmare. I think the special councils end up having to find
          somebody guilty of something to justify spending their life doing things."

So the new national security estimate states that it is now the belief of most of the sixteen intelligence agencies that Iran stopped trying to build nuclear weapons sometime in 2003, and are continuing to not do so now. The estimates on when they could have a nuclear weapon now range from late 2009-into-2010, to sometime around 2015. The questions that this raises are many, and the answers quite few.

For one thing, can it be believed? Aren't these the same intelligence agencies that produced a national security estimate that stated that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons programs, and could restart their nuclear program? That one didn't turn out so well. So, now what? The New York Times states that the new estimate is the product of new, more rigorous methods  brought about by an overhaul after past failures (for one thing, consensus between sixteen different agencies is no longer sought). Some others may point out that this estimate was created after the departures of Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and others, and after an apparent lessening of the influence of Dick Cheney. There may be no evidence that directly shows political pressure being placed on intelligence agencies, but the work done at the Justice Department shows that the will was there.

Israeli officials have reiterated that it is still their belief that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. The IAEA holds that they are not, and that the new estimate jives with their beliefs. So, there are good reasons to believe both sides. It will be interesting to look at the Israeli assessment in six months or so, to see if it changes.

One thing worth noting about the Israeli opinion is that it may not be that different from the American one. According to the same Haaretz article linked to above, the 2009-10 estimate is a worst-case scenario; this is the same worst-case scenario that the American assessment has. The difference is that this is the focus of the Israeli estimate, while the American estimate focuses on the majority opinion of around seven years or so.

Ultimately, the accuracy does not matter. The major affect is that any effort by President Bush to raise support for military action against Iran will find even less support than it once did. It will also be even more impossible to get tougher sanctions passed through the UN security council. So, good news: no air strikes on Iran, no more pointless warfare, no further deterioration of the US' image around the world, at least on this front, if that is possible. And, if the estimate is wrong, and Iran does build nuclear weapons, the US will simply get caught with their pants down like they did with India and Pakistan.

One other thing: Iran may not be building a bomb, but enriching uranium is not not building a bomb. They may not be working on a delivery system or things of that nature, but developing the ability to enrich fissile material is a part of developing a nuclear device.

The next steps are new debate. Does this prove that sanctions and pressure work, and that the heat should be turned up to force Iran to stop enriching uranium altogether? Or should they be rewarded? The debate was summed up pretty well here, I think. As the segment continues, Peter Rodman, who as the former defense department was probably appointed by the President, comes off more and more ideological, saying things like, "I don't trust the Iranians."

The estimate noted that Iran halted their program after a cost-benefit analysis. As Stratfor pointed out in their podcast this morning, much analysis of Iran is based on the idea that as a theocracy, which they are, they are crazy, as in, they are hell-bent on building a bomb, damn the consequences. However, one can look at their historical record and argue that they have behaved in a rational manner since 1979 (this, of course, would make political scientists very, very happy). It is a good idea to step back, take a breath, think of Iran as just another state, and remember that Ahmadinejad is a great speech maker without that much power, although it seems to be growing.

David Kay brings up another good point in the News Hour segment above: if the revelation that Iran halted their nuclear program is met with increased sanctions, which is what President Bush wants, then hard-liners within Iran will be able to say, what good has stopping the program gotten us? Why not start it again? What could we lose?

I believe it was Vice President Cheney who remarked, "I don't do carrots." This is exactly the foreign policy that has failed so spectacularly. Carrots worked for Libya, they worked for North Korea, and now is the time to engage in serious, committed diplomacy with Iran. The US will have to give a little to get a little, and that will be fine; Iraq will never be stabilized without Iranian consent. If this means giving tacit recognition of Iran as a regional power, that may be an admittance of reality more than the granting of a blessing, leading to a complex pas-de-beacuoup  with India, China, Turkey, Israel, Russia and whomever I'm missing. If progress is met with hostility, there will no longer be any progress.

The first instance of stiff resistance to Nicolas Sarkozy's proposed reform package has happened, as railway workers across France struck. Sarkozy is trying to end a program that gives preferred pensions to SNCF employees, basically allowing thousands of them to retire early. He wanted to take that away, as part of a larger effort to to reduce expenditure on public sector employees. The railway workers didn't like the idea of their early retirements being taken away, so they went on strike. It grew from there, as bus drivers, subway conductors and the like, students, and others joined in sympathy strikes.

As an aside, you don't know fun until you try to ride the Paris Metro during a strike. All Parisians should consider themselves lucky that this happened in November, not July.

The Pioneer Tribune had predicted this, a few months ago, when Sarkozy was elected. We were surprised that it took this long, but Sarkozy spent the first several months focusing on  foreign policy; working on the EU non-constitution, rattling the saber towards Iran, etc.

The strikes seemed to be escalating yesterday, when authorities accused strikers of sabatoging railroads, but today the workers voted to scale back and allow negotiations to have a chance. If Sarkozy backs down now, and gives the rail workers what they want, he will have the longest lame-duck presidency in history, having forgone his authority after only one half year. 

Beyond that, he will have blown France's only chance for economic reform for a long time, ending a chance to get their economy back on track and relegating France to a permanant third-place or lower position in European politics, after Germany and the United Kingdom. If France cannot get their way in Europe, their prized possession, the agricultural subsidy plan that gives massive amounts of money to French farmers, may be finally scaled back. This would be good, overall, but would further hurt France.

If ever there was a fast news week, this was it. I'm going to leave something out, I know, but here goes nothing: Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan ahead of a negative supreme court decision, a week or so's worth of protests in Georgia led clashes with police and the expulsion of Russian embassy workers, 52 people, mostly children, were killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan, including three parliamentarians, Adrian Peterson set the single-game rushing record, Mitch Mukasey looks likely to be approved as the next Attorney General, elections in Argentina and Guatemala, and whatever I've forgotten.

So, what does the editorial board think is worth talking about? The political situation in Japan.

Before we go any further, a word on Mukasey's endorsement by the Judiciary Committee: there may be no way to confirm this, but I think that this was the Jewishest confirmation processes ever. Mukasey himself is Jewish, looking to become only the second Jewish AG. Four of the Senators on the committee are Jewish, including ranking Republican Arlen Specter, and Mukasey came highly endorsed by his former classmate Joseph Lieberman.

Last Friday the new prime minister of Japan, Fukuda Yasuo approached the head of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), Ozawa Ichiro, with a proposal of a grand coalition between the two parties. Ozawa considered it a good idea, figuring that it gave his party a chance to make good on some of their campaign promises. When he took it to the executive council, they rejected the idea, which led to Ozawa tendering his resignation. Almost immediately the party asked him to reconsider, and today he announced that he would stay.

A bit of background may be in order: Ozawa formed the DPJ a few years ago in an effort to reform how politics were practiced in Japan. A former secretary-general of the LDP, Ozawa sought to create a two-party system with meaningful opposition and alternating periods of power. Before 1993, the LDP or its antecedents had held power ever since political power was returned to the Japanese following the United States occupation. In 1993 Ozawa left, the LDP's factional structure broke down, and a seven-party coalition took office on the promise of electoral reform as a panacea.

So the electoral system was changed, and while it has strengthened the DPJ while weakening the LDP and the Socialists, it was not a cure-all, and the LDP returned to power fairly quickly. Now the DPJ holds the less-powerful Senate, reflecting the public sentiment more than anything else.

Why did Fukuda want to form a grand coalition with the opposition? His party was soundly defeated in the last elections, and they were failing in the first major issue of his tenure, extending the mission of the navy to refuel ships fighting the war in Afghanistan. (on November 1, the law mandating their mission expired and the ships headed home). The figuring may have been to try and get that turned around, and start working towards the future. Another aspect may have been repairing the damage done by Abe Shinzo's tendency to ram through bills that had been approved by the Lower House but not the Upper. This was legal (2/3 majority required), but proved unpopular with the public.

Ozawa raised an interesting point, figuring that this was an opportunity to do some actual governing and get some things done. But the party's executive council was right in figuring that they had the momentum against an LDP in disarray, and that they would lose that advantage by helping out their opponents. One indicator of their acumen is the fact that the idea proved unpopular in opinion polls.

A question that emerges is, did the party officers know that Ozawa would resign if they rejected his proposal? It does not sound like it. So, to what extent is the DPJ just about one man, and to what extent is it sophisticated enough to stand on its own? A charismatic politician and proven electioneer, the party must be worried about what it will do without its leader. However, having been around for this long, and having won an election, it will likely be able to stand on its own.

The danger is that the next Lower House elections don't have to be for a while, and the LDP is full of experienced politicians who may be able to figure a way out of this. The major factors of the LDP's loss of popularity were Abe's personal incompetence and lack of charm, the pensions scandal, and corruption charges against a number of senior government figures. If corruption dies down, the economy gets moving again (a big if), and someone comes along with a bit of charm, they could yet win the next elections. However, when faced with the classic dilemma of an opposition party that has gained on the rulers, they chose to stay in opposition and take their chances.

Today, Ozawa acquiesced, and rejoined the party with an apology. They will move forward, outside of government.

Sixty-Four days. That is how long it is until the Iowa Caucuses. Sixty-Four days until actual decisions are made, until actual delegates are selected. Until actual decisions will be made regarding who should be the next President of the United States of America. The person with the greatest hand for influencing the direction of the world. The commander in chief of the most powerful military, the top legislator of the largest economy, and the spokesperson for the largest exporter of popular culture in the world. Sixty-Four days.

Can you tell I'm getting a little excited?

Hillary Rodham Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead in the national polls over all other Democrats. Of course, mentioning this leads to one thought: national polls are almost completely pointless at this juncture. People are going to respond to actual victories, or, more accurately, not losing. If Clinton somehow finishes third in Iowa, or New Hampshire, game over.  Barak Obama polls second, John Edwards third.

What does that mean? Not much; the caucuses will attract only the activists, who will go further to the left than a general electorate would. This somewhat invalidates the poll numbers, and should favor Edwards more than anyone. But what of the winner? The last two Democrats to win Iowa captured the nomination, but Bill Clinton finished a distant third. It should be pointed out, however, that the winner in 1992 was Tom Harkin, the former governor of Iowa.

Then it is off to New Hampshire, which as an open primary, will tell us more about the country at large than the nomination. The real primary season doesn't start until the closed primaries, which better indicate what the party regulars want. Just ask John McCain; illegitimate child or not, the party base was with Bush. This year, Rodham Clinton has already shifted into general election campaigning, somewhat. Time will tell if that hurts her.

One notable item about the field: it seems like most politicians are attorneys, and this year it is more true than ever. Virtually all of the major candidates are lawyers, Including the top three Democrats (Bill Richardson is not, having been a career diplomat). Rudy Giuliani worked in the justice department, and even Mitt Romney, known mostly for his business experience, has a JD.

Anyway, all of that isn't for a little while now. Sixty-Four days.

Also, over 100 monks staged a peaceful march in Pakokku, the city in Burma where the last round of protests began. And Ehud Olmert was diagnosed as having a small tumor on his prostate. He will not begin treatment until after the Annapolis summit, so it should not affect him until then.

Today President Bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded Schip, a program that provides health care for children, from $25 to $60 billion. That's right; the President decided against giving money to poor, sick children. There are enough votes in the Senate to override the veto, as the bill was popular with Republicans, but not in the House, for now. If no middle ground is found, or if the House doesn't come around, the program is faced with having no funding after this month, so the president will probably get his way.

Giving money to sick, poor children is exactly what a government should do.

Last Sunday I attended the season finale for the Milwaukee Brewers. They won, damning the Padres to a play-in game for the Wild Card spot that they would go on to lose. For the Brewers, the game did not matter, as they had already been eliminated from the playoffs. It was difficult to watch the Brewers go from having a comfortable lead in the division to second place, though not wholly unpredictable, and you have to feel bad for the players. None more so than Geoff Jenkins, who has spent his entire ten-year career with the Brewers, through plenty of loosing seasons. This is likely Jenkins' last year with the Brewers, and he got pulled just before the ninth inning, leaving to a long, standing ovation.

Don't feel to bad for him, competent left-handed outfielders with plus defense do pretty well.

That being said, here's the Pioneer Tribune all-everything team for 2007:

C:   Jeorge Posada
1B: Prince Fielder
2B: Chase Utley
SS: Jimmy Rollins
3B: Ryan Braun
OF: Matt Holliday
OF: Torii Hunter
OF: Magglio Ordonez
SP: Jake Peavy
SP: CC Sabathia
CP: Joe Nathan

Not too many surprises, really. Pretty clear cut this year.

This is also probably the last year with the Twins for Torii Hunter, the last remaining member of the Soul Patrol. Hunter has really come on the last two years, putting together complete seasons at the plate without sacrificing any of his defense. He's going to make what baseball insiders refer to as a "boatload of cash."

Reports out of Burma have nine people having been killed today in clashes with the army. Before any marching could occur several monasteries were raided, and the monks beaten and arrested. If these numbers are accurate, the crackdown has been relatively light; not to devalue the deaths of nine individuals, but it doesn't sound like they are firing into the crowds too much.

Much of the attention paid to this story has been focused on China (China is big, Burma is smaller). China has been described as Burma's patron state, and certainly has more influence than any other state enjoys. China's foreign policy has come under fire this past year over allegations that it deals with questionable regimes in Africa, in particular Sudan, in exchange for raw materials. With the Olympics in Beijing only nine months away, the theory goes, China will place considerable pressure on Burma not to commit a massacre. This presupposes that China is able to sway a junta that may fear for their positions, and that people will still be talking about Burma in nine months.

To be fair, if hundreds are killed, they might. People are still talking about Tiananmen Square, right?

Also, if I'm Gordon Brown, I want this picture used for every story about me. Look at him; he has that "I'm giving you your third glass of wine" look on his face.

After days of protests by monks in the capital Rangoon, the Burmese government began to crack down today, the only ways they know how: shooting in the air and into crowds, beating people, firing tear gas. The reports I have seen have been very sketchy, due to the difficulty in extracting information, but up to four monks were reported killed. The number or injured is unknown.

The monks started protesting following some sporadic civilian action protesting an abrupt 500% increase in the price of gasoline. They kept the protests small at first, but they grew, and perhaps 100,000 civilians formed a chain around the monks for the most recent march. Apparently that was too much, and some action was taken. This was light, however; in 1988 a similar protest against the military junta let to the deaths of thousands.

It is nice to think sometimes that the world has grown too small for this to happen again; that states today are too interconnected, that the internet and satellite communications spread information too fast, that too much money is invested in too many places, to allow a government to murder thousands of its own citizens. Burma is a member of ASEAN, which is preparing to celebrate its fortieth anniversary. It has onerous sanctions, but has a relationship with China. Tomorrow, and the next few days, could be seen as a test of liberal institutionalism, the idea that bringing states together in bilateral and multi-lateral organizations prohibits them from taking drastic actions.

Japan has a new Prime Minister. Fukuda Yasuo was elected president of the LDP, and thus Prime Minister, over the weekend, beating out the Pioneer Tribune's predicted winner, Aso Taro. Fukuda is a long-time LDP politician, having served as cabinet secretary for Koizumi Junichiro as well as his predecessor. His job now is to heal some rifts in the party and get something going before the next election. Policy-wise, the issue is extending the refueling missing for American and allied planes in the Indian Ocean, which faces majority opposition in the upper house.

The election of Fukuda, 72, brings to mind the election of the emperor Nerva in 96 CE at the age of 66, an older man not expected to serve long, just long enough to settle things down. The problems facing the LDP and Japan do not include civil war, but the party has some issues.

Transparency International released their rankings of the most and least corrupt states on Earth. The United States ranked 20th. Israel was 30th.

Also, it looks like Chile is going to extradite Alberto Fujimori to Peru to stand trial for corruption and human rights violations.