Unless you live in one of the 17 states that still use the caucus as part of the political nominating process, your knowledge of that institution is likely limited to Iowa caucus reports on the news.  Yet the caucus plays a broader, important role in our presidential nominating process. 

In states that have retained or returned to the caucus - such as my state of Colorado - every election year sees a spirited debate over the merits and demerits of the caucus system.  The young lady who cuts my hair, a staunch conservative Republican, expresses the negative viewpoint as well as anyone. 

She doesn't like the caucus system because it excludes too many people.  To prove her point, I suppose, she self-excluded herself by not attending the caucus in our precinct, despite my strong encouragement to do so!

Our local Republican Party treasurer, on the other hand, champions the caucuses because they're the only place the average voter can actually participate in debates on issues and candidates and have those debates translate into meaningful action.

I myself like the caucus system for an entirely different reason.

Assuming John McCain gets the Republican nomination, it will show how whimsical history can be.

It would be the first time in living memory that a Republican presidential nomination went to a candidate who was not merely opposed by a majority of the party, but was actively despised by about a half of its rank-and-file voters across the country -and by many if not most of its congressional officeholders.

After all, the McCain electoral surge was barely able to deliver a plurality of one-third of the Republican vote in a three-, four- or five-way split field. He has won fair and square - but he has driven the nomination process askew.

This result reminds me of the nursery rhyme:

Democracy died in Europe at the end of 2007.

Last December, governments leaders of the 27 European Union member states convened in Lisbon to sign the EU Reform Treaty. This treaty of 76,250 words is a rewrite of the EU Constitutional Treaty, which was rejected in 2005 by referendums in major European countries.

European leaders carefully avoid to call the reform treaty a "constitution," however, because they do not want to submit it to their peoples in a referendum. French President Nicolas Sarkozy conceded in November that the treaty would be rejected "in all member states if they have a referendum."

Politicians like Mr. Sarkozy and Germany's Mrs. Merkel are the driving forces of this process because it enhances their powers. Today's EU's governmental bodies - the European Commission and the European Council - are unelected; they are appointed by the national governments.

As the British author John Laughland explains: "The EU is a cartel of governments, engaged in a permanent conspiracy against their own electorates and parliaments." 

This is an endless a campaign of "what ifs." 

That is, a campaign prepares a strategy that presupposes a scenario which apparently will occur with 100 percent probability.  Then, when things don't quite go as planned, the campaign strategists have an alibi. Somehow, externalities undercut a supposedly thoughtful and well conceived plan.

The only problem with all this self-serving Monday morning quarter-backing?  Events with a reasonable probability were assigned zero probability, because the strategy was ineptly created. It often assumed an optimum or best case scenario. Or it sharply or entirely discounted reasonably foreseeable events.

Let's go through the what-ifs of the candidates in the wake of Florida and on the eve of Super Tuesday.

A good man has withdrawn from the campaign.

Fred Thompson, as I predicted, withdrew from the campaign after his predictably disappointing performance in South Carolina. But he has surprised me by not endorsing John McCain...yet.  

Thompson hinted days earlier that South Carolina would be conclusive for him, but it was emotionally taxing on his wife.  One thing at a time.  He may yet endorse, although in a conference call to his maxed-out donors yesterday (1/24), he said he would not.

Perhaps he is waiting to see whether McCain or Romney wins the very competitive Florida primary on Tuesday.  Indeed, the winner of that primary has a real leg up on Super Tuesday.  And for one candidate, Rudy Giuliani, it could be a life line, or the last gasp. 

A scandal is emerging in the Pentagon that may be the most strategically ominous case of official misconduct since the Clinton administration's China-gate.

It began with the firing last month of Stephen Coughlin, a major in the Army Reserves working as a civilian contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he ran afoul of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England's point-man on Moslem community outreach, Hashem Islam.

Mr. Islam is an admirer of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization designated by the Justice Department as a front for the Moslem Brotherhood (Ikhwan Muslimi).

I've done perhaps 1700 surveys and focus groups.  Generally, I've maintained that published polls affect pundits, insiders, and donors - not voters.  But I've been saying for awhile that this year (the way the primaries are clustered and with the hyper-media coverage) would be different, and it is. 

What happens in each primary is affecting national numbers.  And national numbers are affecting what happens in each primary.  There is a momentum effect, and people are looking for validation.  That's why I have long predicted Rudy's collapse, and how national polling numbers would change, and even when they would change. 

Yet I find it easier, at this point, to count out winner Huckabee than no-show Rudy.  Anything is possible in this volatile environment, including a brokered convention.  So here are a few thoughts on where the main candidates are on the eve of the South Carolina primary (1/19), and where I am, and why I continue my view from last year that McCain has the inside track.