I have been remiss in my blogging duties of late.  Too much grading (which is still not completed).  Too much field hockey (my daughter had an all-day tournament rather far away on Saturday.  They came in second!).  Too much stuff around the office.  And, of course, I have been focusing more attention on following the presidential race.  Here are some predictions:

Obama will win 338 electoral college votes.
The Democrats will emerge with 59 seats in the Senate (that includes the two Independents who caucus with  Dems.)

For me, the interesting question now is: how is it that Obama won?  I know, I am putting this in the past tense as if it has already occurred.  But that's OK.  I'm confident Obama will win.  And if I had to pick the most important factor in his victory it is: Bush.

Bush's presidency has been so disastrous that no one really refers to it anymore.  It is a settled fact that W. has destroyed, for now, the Republican brand.  I think it is safe to say that no incumbent president has been treated so shabbily at a national political convention as Bush was treated this year at the Republican convention.  They kept him physically separated from McCain and limited him to a brief TV appearance.  Even the Republicans know how terrible Bush has been as president.

The key factor in the failed Bush presidency is Iraq.  Bush lost the war.  Even though conservatives try now to argue  that the "surge" has been victorious, the shattered political situation in Iraq underlines the fundamental failure of the war.  The possibility that violence in Iraq might increase in the wake of an Obama victory demonstrates the political dynamics at work: violence decreased in recent months not because some sort of durable peace has been gained but because various Iraqi political forces are biding their time, waiting to make their next military move. Whatever the outcome of the American election, there is no political reconciliation in Iraq.  The failure to construct some sort of lasting political settlement is not lost on American voters.  They know the war has failed, they blame Bush and they want out.  

Obama placed himself on the right side of this issue from the start.  His anti-war, anti-Bush stance helped him defeat Hillary in the primaries and it has provided a baseline of support against McCain.  Any time McCain has tried to argue for the victory of the surge, the electorate has drifted away from him.

Of course, other circumstantial factors have helped Obama, not the least of which is the economic crisis. But Bush's failure in Iraq gave Obama a start and has kept Obama politically alive. 

I should also say that Obama himself, his temperament and character, has done a lot to win this election.  He is a smart, prudent, skilled leader and that has come across in the campaign.  By contrast, McCain has shown himself to be erratic, unsteady and angry.  McCain was always in a tough position circumstantially, but he actually hurt himself by his own ineffectual campaigning – the most egregious moment of which was his impulsive pick of Palin to be his VP candidate, a move that has obviously hurt him with voters.

At the end of the day, however, it is Bush who is primarily responsible for Obama's victory.  I imagine that this is not what W. has thought about as he has pondered his legacy in recent months.  Eight years ago there was talk of a permanent Republic majority.  But now, not so much.  His ineptitude and ignorance and arrogance has brought about just the opposite, a sweeping Democratic victory.  It's full of Taoist irony, really: the conservative paves the way for the liberal…

So, as hard as it might be for Obama supporters tomorrow night, I think, as we celebrate, we should raise a glass to the man most responsible for the great Obama victory: George W. Bush!