Via Outside the Beltway comes this Defense Department release, which indicates significant changes are in store for the military workforce:

Up to 25,000 Defense Department civilians may be eligible for thousands of dollars in separation pay through an early-buyout program.
The program is part of the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.
On Dec. 30, Ginger Groeber, deputy undersecretary of defense for civilian personnel policy, allocated 25,000 buyouts to defense components to pay eligible departing employees up to $25,000 if they choose to leave their jobs early.
. . .
Groeber said the program’s primary beneficiaries are employees who work at facilities the Defense Department expects to close, or at locations where there is a change in the military mission. She said that while the buyout will help DoD to minimize its work force at commands and organizations that are downsizing or restructuring, it also may allow the department to offer a substantial sum of money to workers forced out of their jobs through the separation process.

This reminds me: someone who works near Washington, D.C. recently told me that within three or four years there’s a huge number (25%?) of federal workers who will become eligible for retirement. It may be that a lot of baby boomers are reaching that point. At any rate, if we do see a high turnover in the near future it’s not going to do much to improve government efficiency, is it?

Seven more state results are in. Despite having been the strongest fund raiser, Dr. Dean hasn’t done well. In Oklahoma and South Carolina Dean, to use Senator Liberman’s terminology, finished at the bottom of a three-way tie for third.
So what in the world has he done with all his money? David Bernstein provides insight by contrasting Dean’s spending with Senator Kerry’s:

One strategic difference can be seen in the salaries. Both campaigns spent roughly $1.8 million on staff salaries in the three months, but Dean relied heavily on a handful of campaign leaders and a large number of low-paid staff. Kerry hired a couple dozen experienced, high-paid middle-management staff, and spread them out.
Aside from Trippi, only four Dean people were earning more than $5,000 a month; the national finance director, the New Hampshire coordinator, and two deputy campaign managers. Kerry had 13 making at least that. Perhaps the most important comparison: Kerry�s Iowa director, John Norris, was paid $9,170 a month; Dean�s, Jeannie Murray, earned barely half that salary.
One of Dean�s $5,000+ deputy campaign managers, Andrea Pringle, joined the Dean staff just last August. Pringle is a partner at Whistle Stop Communications, which specializes in direct mail. Her influence may help explain why the campaign spent $2.6 million on direct mail from October through December — including more than $900,000 paid to Whistle Stop. Kerry spent just $500,000 on direct mail over the same period.
The two campaigns spent pretty evenly on travel and lodging, but Dean�s campaign became increasingly event-oriented. The campaign spent roughly $900,000 on event costs — three times as much as Kerry. (This included a $48,000 holiday party at Davio�s in Boston in December.)
Technology — the trademark of Trippi�s young, hip, Internet-driven campaign — swallowed up another $900,000. Kerry spent just $100,000.
Of course, Trippi made sure to spend plenty on advertising as well — after all, like most campaign managers, he was paid by commission on ad buys. Of the $5.1 million Dean spent on media for the three months (Kerry spent $3.9 million), almost $4.5 million was bought through Trippi�s agency. At Trippi�s fifteen percent commission (revealed after he was fired), that meant he was personally making close to $200,000 a month. That figure certainly increased in January — giving Trippi a nice windfall of commissions to cushion the blow of losing the actual campaign.

Guess we needn’t shed too many tears for Trippi. Blog for America is great and all, but $900,000? Reading stuff like this almost gives one the impression Dean has blown a lot of money or something.

Daily Kos compares state pre-election polls with the final tallies to see how predictive each has been.
Zogby appears to have come the closest, but SUSA and ARG have done reasonably well.

No matter how much I want to believe otherwise, I always seem to revert back to the position that Americans are clueless sheep. Counterspin Central directs us to a Newsweek poll offering the latest evidence:

“Do you think Iraq actually had banned chemical or biological weapons right before the Iraq War started in March, or not?”
Jan. 29-30, 2004
Yes — 55%
No — 32%
Don’t know — 13%
“Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?”
Jan. 29-30, 2004
Was — 49%
Was Not — 39%
Don’t Know — 16%”

I wonder the American public may have gotten this erroneous impression?
(a) Bush and company invariably mentioning 9/11 when discussing Iraq;
(b) Bush and company focusing attention on Saddam Hussein, while seemingly ignoring Osama bin Laden’s existence;
(c) Fox News Channel using a bold “War on Terror” caption whenever discussing Iraq; or
(d) All of the above.

Yesterday the Democratic presidential field was trimmed to six–well, four really. In the NCAA basketball tournament coaches say the object is to “survive and advance.” By that measure, both Clark and Edwards can claim victory. Both came through in their “must win” state. [Due to his national base, Dean continues to survive, though he has yet to advance anywhere.]
It’s no secret I’m pulling for Senator Edwards in this fight. I still see an window of opportunity for Edwards, but a couple things must fall in line:
(1) The field must narrow. I’m confident Edwards can beat Kerry on an even, one-on-one playing field. But he can’t take on Clark and Kerry. If all three are running next week in Tennessee and Virginia, I fear it’s going to split the “southern” vote and Kerry will win by default. Moreover, the more candidates that remain in the race, the less an opportunity Edwards will have to get his message out–the message that’s been winning over Republican and independent voters.
(2) A friendly media. Good luck here. It hasn’t appeared thus far. I was watching election coverage last night–mostly MSNBC–and if I care to document the pro-Kerry bias I literally could have written all night. Sure he’s the frontrunner and all, but this is ridiculous. A few examples:

• Chris Matthews once described Edwards as “delusional” if he thought he could really win the nomination.
• Lawrence O’Donnell insisted that “100%” of Liberman’s supporters would hope aboard the Kerry juggernaut.
• The network repeatedly referred to an exit poll showing a majority of voters would be “satisfied” if Kerry won the nomination as proof that Democrats are “rallying behind Kerry” as the most “electable” candidate. Turns out the pollsters didn’t even ask this question of Senator Edwards, despite the fact that Edwards had the highest favorability marks in New Hampshire. This is pure journalistic garbage.

Of course this could all change. Should Kerry stumble or the media adopt the “two man race” storyline, things could turn around real quickly. Just ask Governor Dean.