Some politics for today:

Andrew Sullivan has some not-so-breathless praise for Howard Dean. Is it really necessary to harp on the guy's height (or lack thereof)? Mreow! Maybe it is time for Andrew's annual vacation.

Anyway, for anyone wondering, let me say it loud and clear: Absent any new Bush scandal material, Bush is going to crush the Democratic nominee in 2004. The Dem candidates all have major flaws, and will only beat each other up between now and the campaign.

Their best candidate, Dean, who is appealing on several issues, has been consistently anti-war regarding Iraq. He responded to the removal of Hussein by saying "I suppose it's a good thing." Hello! It should be clear that despite a vocal minority, the US voter population was and is squarely behind the actions in Iraq.

Another problem for Dems is that their best candidates, including Dean and Kerry, have very little appeal to black voters. While I am relieved by the relative lack of pandering to black "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson thus far, it is a political reality that Democrats can not win a national election without 80% or more of the black vote, including a high turnout. The only reason Florida was even in play last election is that there was a huge black turnout, and as a group it voted about 90% or so for Gore. Gore had Clinton's imprimatur, which helped turn out the black vote. Dean and Kerry poll under 10% among blacks, and have zero southern appeal. Not a good combination.

Even if the battle over issues is even, Bush will be able to outspend his competition something like 3-to-1, maybe even 4-to-1 if the Dem nomination battle is hard fought. The Administration has been receiving a fair amount of bad press lately, but just remember - they aren't campaigning. Like the NFL, this is still preseason - masterminds like Rove and, yes, Bush, don't show their playbook until things count. Don't think they won't have a couple surprises. And so much money. In politics, money is life.

Aside from demographics and money, I also expect some political maneuvering. Bush's foes have consistently "misunderestimated" him, which in turn has allowed the administration to set them up badly on several occasions. For example, before the war, luring his opponents out on a limb regarding UN inspectors, only to saw it off by giving them their way but not how they expected it. I suspect the same for the entire "weapons of mass destruction" thing - it's really a non-issue, as even former President Clinton has acknowledged - yet Bush's opponents have practically staked their integrity on the lack of evidence of WMD. If we don't find them, there are plenty of other justifications for the war, including the capacity and history of WMD in the region. If we do find them - and there is quietly mounting evidence - then a lot of detractors will look impatient, short-sighted, and foolish. Not a winning combination.

The biggest problem for Republicans is not the Democrats, but rather their own hubris (Andrew Sullivan brought this up a while ago). In the wake of Repub political victories, including in 1994 and 2002, there have been miscalculations and overreaching, particularly on cultural issues. Repubs don't seem to realize that a lot of Repub voters don't agree with them on cultural issues, but vote on the economics and principles - hell, even John Derbyshire is a "Metropolitan Conservative".

Back to the Dems: What about Hillary? First off, it must be acknowledged that she could easily win the nomination - though whether she has a chance nationally is another issue altogether. A lot of people, meaning myself and a couple websites I read, have long speculated that she will run in 2008, but will avoid the 2004 race because of the tough competition from Bush and the general feeling that things aren't quite ripe. However, some have made the point, including Robert Bartley today, that 2008 may be too late. If the Dems put up an extremist candidate in 2004 - and Dean is indeed extremist in terms of national politicians - they may turn Republicans into a majority party. Personally, I don't want clear Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress and the White House, but in terms of political prospects, that could be a tough nut to crack for Hillary or any Democrat unless the country really has problems.

That leads to my final point: no candidate should position himself where his prospects are in direct opposition to the course of the country, where their incentives align with American failure. Candidates like Dean are essentially staking their hopes that America will be weak economically and ineffective in our foreign policy. That is just an ugly way to be positioned - yet many Democrats find themselves in effect rooting against the USA in order to regain power. Hm, I wonder how that happened. Misunderestimated, indeed.