[UPDATE: This post has been linked by InstaPundit, and at least one person who followed the link interpreted my comment below as criticizing the military in some way. That wasn’t my intention at all. I have nothing but respect and admiration
for the military. Indeed, I share the anti-politician, pro-military
attitude of most members of the public! It’s the politicians who need
to fix this, not the military or the public. As the asterisk at the bottom of this post makes clear, I wish our political class would improve, so that the public confidence levels in politicians and the military could become closer to equalized.

What’s the problem with them not being equalized, you ask? Well, to be clear, I don’t fear an imminent military coup or anything like that. Really, I’m just echoing a point made by the InstaPundit himself a few weeks ago, namely that the confluence of single-digit or low-teens approval ratings for Congress (and low-twenties for the president), coupled with supermajority approval ratings for the military, is intrinsically, conceptually bad for democracy in the long-term. Very few people would support a military coup right now, and very few military members would even consider mounting one. But if these sorts of numbers continue indefinitely, I would imagine we could very easily see a creeping increase in military, as opposed to civilian, power over governmental affairs. It’s not because I’m anti-military that I believe such a trend would be a bad thing; it’s because I’m pro-democracy.]

*   *   *

The AP takes a look at Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton fatigue. Count me among the 25 percent of Americans who say that anti-dynasty sentiment will be a factor in their 2008 voting decision. Not necessarily the deciding factor — I’ll still vote for Hillary if I ultimately conclude she’s the best choice by a sufficiently wide margin — but a factor, for sure. This dynastic trend clearly isn’t healthy for democracy. It’s one of several unhealthy trends at the moment, in fact (the public’s extremely low confidence in the political class and extremely high confidence in the military* being another).

Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus is taking a look at Bill Richardson, who he argues is undervalued in the political betting markets:

Bill Richardson is trading at .60 on Intrade. I think that means his odds for winning the Democratic nomination are currently running 167-1 against. You should take those odds. 1) He’s already at 11% in Iowa, where voters notoriously look around for an alternative to the front runners in the final 10 days. 2) Iowa, they say, is more important than ever! 3) A clear, major policy difference just opened up between him and all three of the candidates ahead of him, when they refused to promise to pull out all troops from Iraq by 2013; 4) The Iowa caucuses attract a small minority of relatively liberal Democrats who are likely to care intensely about Iraq and find Richardson’s promise very appealing. 5) He doesn’t even have to win to get a slingshot effect from Iowa. Gary Hart didn’t win Iowa in 1984–he finished second with 14.8%–but that was enough to propel him to victory in New Hampshire and other early primaries.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.) Kaus adds, "I’m not pro-Richardson. He has a rep as a substance-challenged schmoozer and he’s certainly a panderer. I disagree with him vehemently on immigration and No Child Left Behind. I just think he’s currently well-positioned for a #1 or #2 finish in Iowa."

I’m not pro-Richardson either; I’ve flirted with the idea before, but his "promise" on Iraq is — I think — a negative in my book. (I’m not sure what the hell we should do in Iraq — and watching The Fog of War last night didn’t help any — but I’m fairly certain it’s irresponsible to promise complete withdrawal as a candidate, given how much the "facts on the ground" can change in the next 16 months, and given that candidates aren’t privy to the kinds of classified information that presidents are. And regardless, precipitous withdrawal is an undeniably terrible idea… I think.) But I agree with Kaus about the potential for a Richardson surge. I think it’s foolish to assume that the nominee will definitely be Clinton or Obama, with Edwards the only conceivable dark horse. A lot can happen between now and the first caucuses and primaries (well, assuming Iowa and New Hampshire don’t reschedule to, like, tomorrow).

P.S. In other Election 2008 news, Christian conservatives are threatening to back a third-party candidate to be named later (Alan Keyes, anyone?) if that godless, cross-dressing, gay-loving baby-killer Rudy Giuliani wins the GOP nomination. This could significantly disrupt my theory that Giuliani is obviously the most electable Republican candidate.

*I’m not saying the public’s respective confidence levels in politicians and the military are unjustified. On the contrary! It’s the suckiness of our current political class that’s the problem here, not the public’s perceptions thereof. Political class, heal thyself! Or perhaps, un-suckify thyself!