Iraq and the Ads

He hasn't endorsed anyone, but I believe that Saddam Hussein has just upstaged Al Gore as a factor in the current campaign season.

It's about 35 days until the Iowa Caucus, and the former dictator of Iraq has been caught.

There is a lot of talk about how this might affect the caucus and primaries, and the general election. (In the first week of December, I said anything can happen in the next 6-7 weeks, and it did. And I wouldn't be surprised at more surprises before the Iowa Caucus and NH Primary.)

The mainstream media is already guessing how this might play out; most of them say it's good for Bush; good for the Democratic candidates Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman who voted for invading Iraq; and bad for Dean.

We can be sure that all of the campaigns are adjusting their messages for the next few weeks. Some thoughts on how the most recent development in Iraq might play out in the ads:

EDWARDS, GEPHARDT, KERRY, and LIEBERMAN
Nabbing Saddam Hussein does take some pressure off of Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman. Now it looks like they voted for an Iraq policy that has had some degree of success. The capture really helps Gephardt; perhaps he won't need to spend valuable ad resources countering Dean ads that bring up his votes with the president on invading Iraq. Instead, Gephardt is likely to spend even more time and money pounding Dean on his lack of complete support for Medicare.

The capture also gives Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman a platform to restate their position that the president should use this opportunity to make a real coalition (one that includes Russia, Germany, and France) to rebuild Iraq. They can argue that Bush did get Saddam, but at great cost to U.S. foreign relations.

(Indeed, the Bush administration doesn't seem to have complete control of its foreign policy on this matter. Just a few days ago, one part of the administration was sending out James Baker to ask the three countries to forgive loans to Iraq, while the Pentagon told the same countries that because they didn't play by Bush's rules, they can't bid on rebuilding contracts.)

DEAN
It's not all bad for Dean, though. There are about 500 Americans and thousands of Iraqis dead so far in the war with Iraq, and if today is any indication (with a bombing of an Iraqi police station northwest of Baghdad leaving at least 17 dead), the attacks unfortunately won't be stopping anytime soon. The point is that it's still not "mission accomplished" yet, and may not be for some time. (For a sample case, see Afghanistan in the post-Taliban era.) So, caution to the Democratic candidates who might use this for political advantage.

Moreover, given Dean's devotion to this issue (despite his flip-flops, as the Gephardt campaign has rightly pointed out), I wouldn't expect him to back away from it. There are at least two points Dean can make. First, the chief rationale for invading Iraq was that it was threatening us with "weapons of mass destruction." So far, they haven't been found. Second, the other rationale for invading Iraq was Bush's preemptive strike doctrine against terrorism. But, by Bush's own belated admission, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So, does the invasion of Iraq do anything toward the war on terrorism? And where is Osama bin Laden?

My guess is that Dean's ads won't address the Iraq issue unless he is pressed on it. Dean's ads in recent weeks haven't even been about issues -- they've been about Dean's campaign as a movement.

BUSH
If the president continues with efforts to pull out of Iraq prior to the general election, he can at least claim partial victory by unseating and capturing Saddam, even if the country is far from rebuilt.