A lot of the blogosphere is mocking David Brooks’ assertion that 2008 is shaping up as a ‘post-war election’. As Greg Mitchell notes:

Now, today, comes a new Gallup poll which, of course, reveals, as Gallup puts it, that when “asked which issues will be most important in determining their vote for president in next year’s election, Americans by a wide margin say the war in Iraq, with more than one in three mentioning the war.” Only after that do they mention the economy, healthcare, and illegal immigration. Gallup said that Iraq has diminished only “somewhat” as the top issue over the course of the year. The poll was conducted Nov. 30-Dec. 2.

But, David Brooks still manages to make a couple of solid points.

If voters in next year’s election are like those in the last election cycles, then 20 percent of them will likely make up their minds during the final three days of the campaign and another 20 percent or 30 percent will make their decision during the last couple of weeks.

All that you’ve been reading about the race over the past year is trivial compared to this question: Which candidacy best matches the zeitgeist of the closing days?

He’s also right about this:

The two candidates who have been surging, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee, have almost no foreign policy experience between them.

Actually, Barack Obama has some relevant experience: he sits on both the Foreign Relations and the Homeland Security committees. Working on those problems over the last three years has provided a framework for thinking about our foreign policy and security challenges. But it’s still true that Obama’s foreign policy experience is somewhat thin. Yet, it doesn’t appear that Iowans care. Brooks is right that the most important factor in the Iowa caucuses is going to be whose campaign most closely matches the national zeitgeist (albeit, broken into the two parties). And it’s hard to say whether that favors Edwards or Obama, but I have a feeling it will not favor Clinton.

The Democratic primary/caucus voter has a lot of economic anxiety and may respond favorably to Edwards’ anti-corporate message. Edwards could also benefit from the fact that he does not currently hold elected office. On the other hand, many Democrats are thirsting for someone that can get beyond the petty bickering and re-unite the country. That could favor Obama. What I don’t see is how the current mood of the country could possibly favor Hillary Clinton. I don’t sense much nostalgia, and she’s too polarizing and pro-corporate to match Edwards and Obama.

Clinton has two strengths. She has perceived electability and she has a reputation for toughness. The Zeitgeist that would favor her would be a perception that the Republican side is favored in the general election and an atmosphere of fear and war fever. In other words, if this were 2004, Clinton would be perfectly positioned. But it is not 2004. The media’s decision to not cover Iraq has led to a different feel in the electorate. The NIE on Iran has taken some of the edge off the threat assessment. It hurts Clinton that people are not being exposed to constant bad news from Iraq because people are less fearful.

The more severe problem for Clinton is the incredible weakness of the Republican field. The Democrats are favored to win the 2008 election regardless of who they nominate. And that is a killer. Why vote for someone so polarizing if you don’t have to? Why vote for the corporate Democrat if you don’t have to? Why not vote for your aspirations? Why not shoot higher?

We’re going to learn a little about the mood of the country tonight, when we see the results from the special elections in OH-05 and VA-01. If the Dems win either race it will create a tsunami. And the Dems definitely have a chance in the Ohio race, where Robin Weirauch is running a John Edwards style race in a socially conservative district.