Dissecting the Democratic Debates

First of all, applaud me for avoiding the obvious and groan inducing triple-D comment in the title.

Anyway, in watching both the Democratic debates last night and before in New Hampshire (which, if you happened to be making a drinking game out of, be glad you didn't chose "drink every time they say change"), I think I'm ready to call it an Obama-Edwards ticket. Not that I wan't that ticket, but that's what I think it will be.

Sure Hilary had a win in New Hampshire and a big upset in Nevada, but we're moving to the South, where one could reasonably argue race could be a more positive factor than gender amongst Democratic primary attendees, and states like Minnesota, famous for electing the first Muslim member of Congress.

But there's also been some clear positioning. John Edwards, the Dickensian boot black of the debates ("Oi! Oy'll shine that White House up good, me will! Sharp as a thistle, clean as a whistle it'll be!"), has clearly been siddling up to Obama in the most shame-facedly naked display of desperation since the midget drove the tank. Edwards has clearly decided he has no shot and that he's hitchin' his wagon to the winning horse.

Pay attention the next time you hear him in a debate. He opens about half of his points with "So I argue, and Senator Obama agrees with me, blah blah blah" or "Senator Obama and I agree that blah blah blah" or some variation of that. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if during the debates he was writing "Obama + Edwards" inside of little hearts in his Lisa Frank notebook.

So you heard it here first: the Democrats will end up running an Obama-Edwards ticket, and they'll have the smilin'-est, most positive, can-do ticket in the history of politics.