A Silver Lining? It's hard to find one, looking at the election last night. All the bellwether Senate races, from New Hampshire to North Carolina and even Minnesota, swung decidedly in the GOP's direction. And the one seat the Democrats managed to pick up came to them solely because of an incumbent's marital infidelities. So the important question is, where do the Dems go from here?

Firstly, they need new leadership. Gephardt is already taking himself out of the minority leader's position, as he will attempt another feeble presidential run (no shot whatsoever). But Daschle needs to go too, as does the head of the DNC, Terry McAuliffe. They simply did not set an agenda that warranted anyone besides the most loyal party voter to choose the Democratics. This loss is not just an embarrassment because it occurred in the other party's presidential midterms, but because it showed the Democrats running without any ideas. The Republicans, in '94, had the Contract With America. This year, they had the "security" platform - "judicial security" by confirming federal judges, the homeland security department, "economic security" by making tax cuts permanent and unwavering support for war in Iraq. The Democrats resisted confirming even mildly conservative judges, warranted blame for the Homeland Security Department by getting hung up on union membership, stated a contradiction whereby the tax cuts were a bad idea but not worth repealing, and had a multitude of opinions on Iraq that were anything but unified.

It looks as if Nancy Pelosi or Mark Frost will be the new House Minority Leader. Either would do fine I guess, so long as they are a fresh face. In the Senate, I'd like to see Evan Bayh take the position, if possible, but if Daschle ever left, Harry Reid, the second in command, would likely warrant a lot of consideration. As for DNC Chair, which will almost certainly be vacated soon - it'd probably never happen, but Bill Clinton would be perfect for the job.

Next issue - the Democrats are all over TV and the newspapers today blaming the election results on the president's popularity. If they actually believe that, then the party is in worse shape than most think. Hopefully, in the meetings surely to take place over the next few days, when the bickering subsides a sober reality of having run a campaign without a platform will take the blame for this disaster. It was not the Republicans fault that the Dems lost - most Americans disagree with much of what they are proposing. And yet, by characterizing in retrospect the election as they have, the Dems have basically given the GOP a mandate for their agenda.

Finally, where does this leave us for 2004? On this front, all is not bad. If the economy doesn't perk up despite certain further tax cuts, or if any facet of the war goes terribly wrong, every single corpuscle of blame falls straight on the head of the man who said he needed a Republican Congress to basically save the country - George W. Bush. As for potential nominees, I think we can safely put an X through Daschle and Gephardt, no matter how much the latter wants it. They ran a campaign of nothing, and got just that in return. The election is a wash for Al Gore, who on the one hand is vindicated by having put forth an opposition and alternate vision for the country weeks ago, but on the other hand is hurt by having all the candidates for whom he stumped lose. Things look down for John Kerry, too, as outgoing Senator Max Cleland - the Vietnam veteran and triple amputee - proved that just about anyone can be made out to be Unamerican, even a war hero. Also, demographics seem to dictate that the Dems should pick a southerner - Kerry, of course, is from Massachusetts. Since geography is key, John Edwards' (of North Carolina) hopes seem to go up, but even he doesn't leave the night unscathed - Republican Elizabeth Dole picked up the soon-opening junior Senator seat in his state, against Erskine Bowles.

Maybe Election Night 2002 was a good night for Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the only unabashed Bush-hater amongst the wanabees with nothing riding on who won or lost. If only anyone knew who he was.

What Happens Tuesday: As seemingly every politician spends this weekend feverishly campaigning for any other politician on the ballot from their party, it becomes impossible to predict the shape of Congress and the Governor's mansions come Wednesday. The Washington Post tries to simplify as much as possible the House and Senate pickups each party would need to maintain total Congressional control, but even this attempt seems unsatisfactory - it mentions not once the importance of voter turnout.

The ability to mobilize base voters is what will push this election one way the other. While the Democrats, with labor support, seem to have this advantage every election cycle, the GOP has spent millions on new strategies to rally their voters. Moreover, appealing to certain constituencies can indirectly facilitate a number of upsets. Case in point - Democrat Ron Kirk is expected to fall short to Republican John Cornyn in the race for Phil Gramm's Texas Senate seat. In addition, Democrat Tony Sanchez is almost certainly not going to win in the governor's race (though not by much) against Bush's successor, Rick Perry. But here's where the Democrats can benefit - Sanchez is likely to mobilize a extensive Latino turnout on election day, who in a majority of circumstances vote for the Democratic slate. It is these voters who do not show up in polls for the Senate, because they are not yet considered likely voters (indeed they're not - most will be convinced to vote this weekend, Monday and Tuesday). So, if Kirk can grab a signficant amount of the Sanchez Latino coattails, he might just have a fighting chance.

The Post article tends to lean on the position that Tuesday will bring no change at all - the Democrats will keep their minute control of the Senate, and the GOP seems poised to hang on to the House. For what it's worth, I think that seems about right. Perhaps the sweetest outcome in a contested race this year would beFlorida, where Jeb Bush is struggling to hold off Bill McBride at the last minute. Yet, with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and George W. Bush all converging there this weekend in a last chance effort to get out their party's vote, I think I can safely predict chaos there again on Tuesday, as Florida can once again prove how little it has done to fix the litany of problems that spoiled the 2000 election.

Morbid Coincidences: "...As Minnesota mourns the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, many of the state's residents have been receiving fliers bearing a picture of a tombstone. The fliers, sent out by a conservative business group, denounce the late senator's support for maintaining the estate tax. Under the tombstone, the text reads in part: 'Paul Wellstone not only wants to tax you and your business to death . . . he wants to tax you in the hereafter.' " As the column notes, the group sending it out obviously had no clue of future events. Kinda spooky though.

The Way Bush Does/Did Business: In the first few months of the Bush Administration, when that whole landmass called Eurasia didn't matter so much, the official foreign policy of George W. Bush consisted of one country - Mexico. It was a natural for Bush, a Texan and newbie to international relations, to cling to our closest neighbor not resembling the 51st state. This relationship culminated in the September 2, 2001 Official State Dinner for President Vicente Fox, which Fox called "a family affair." The dinner exemplified the course that the president had set out for his international relations - a series of personal relationships, some which prosper (Putin, Blair) and which don't (Chirac, Schroeder), but all of which play a huge stake in our nation's policies towards the rest of the world.

Low and behold, our pal Vicente won't be following us into unilateral action against Iraq. As a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Mexico has a large say in what final resolution against Iraq will be passed. Once considered an "easy vote" by administration officials, Mexico has now says it favors the competing resolution being offered by France, which gives the US less latitude to act without further defiance by Iraq. This episode should be a message to the president that his two ways of gathering international support for his actions - by developing a personal relationship with the leader or by bullying them into giving at least tacit approval - simply isn't going to work within the framework of the UN. By choosing his course to pass through the UN (an obvious one, at least to most people not named Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle or Wolfowitz) Bush has, whether he knows it or not, tied himself into following internationally accepted rules of proceeding with his case for war. Spurning the rest of the world now is a decidedly dumb idea, so unless the president can charm national leaders in Syria and China into following his lead, it looks as though the most powerful country in the world will be one-upped by France, of all places. Weird.

Back Again: Now that two months of neglected work have been successfully compacted into a two week study/read/write-athon, I'm back once more. For good this time.

Too much stuff this week. Be back next week.

A New Vision: So, the president gave an astonishing presentation of his vision for the future of global integration. No, not that president. In an hour address to the British Labour Party Conference, President Clinton shows why he got elected eight years too early. What he spoke about yesterday was a more lucid, optimistic vision of the world than anything the current White House occupant could muster forth on his best day. The reviews in Britain's Guardian and Mirror were gushing, leading the latter to state:

It was a magnificent speech from a man who is rapidly becoming the greatest figure in world politics, second only, perhaps, to Nelson Mandela.

And, while I'm kind of ashamed to have caught this on C-SPAN at 3am when I couldn't sleep, it's probably the best speech Clinton has given since he left office.

Told Ya So: Well, this is not a surprise. Ruling unanimously, the NJ Supreme Court allowed the Torricelli to Lautenberg ballot switch. Read the ruling on their website - it's pretty short. I'll comment on this more when I get back from class.