Agree that Gephardt's done, Edwards is now in for a while, and Dean is falling apart. Clark and Kerry will have to go at each other to win NH.
Kerry has his wife's $ to fall back on to finance his run.
With Dean as nominee Bush blowout was probable. With a more serious candidate like Kerry (or Edwards who might give some benefit in the south) probably looking at a repeat of 1988 (Bush wins 40 states.

Despite the short-term carnage this is going to cause, I think one thing it does show positively for the Democrats (at least in Iowa) is they decided for now not to take that final step off the cliff with Dean.

Kerry's flipped-flopped enough so that he's going to have some 'splainin to do down the line, and Edwards will have to show how a Seantor who was a likely loser for re-election in his own state can win 50 states merely by not being a raving lunatic like much of the rest of his party's field. But either one figures to make Bush work harder in this fall than he would with Howard or Wesley as their party's nominee (which in turn might not be a bad thing for Bush, since his perpetual huge margin in the 1998 gubernatorial election caused him to get a little lazy and sloppy in October of that year).

why should rove be doing handstands? clark (and to a lesser extent kerry) are much more credible threats than paleolibs like dean and gephardt.

I think "Rove's handstands" can only be postulated on the assumption that Iowa has turned the nomination back into a multi-candidate race, that all these candidates will now really turn the heat on each other, that they will spend a lot of money doing so, and that they will hold grudges. Of all of the above, only the last one matters, especially if it serves to alienate some portion of the base. Otherwise, this has been a good noght for Terry McAuliffe and Jon Corzine.

Bet that's the last time we see Dean go to church (Jimmy Carter present or otherwise) before a big day on the campaign trail. Suppose it was the Mrs. showing up in the 11th hour that really sunk him?

AWW:

He can't use his wife's money--it would be a contribution. Not easy being a cabana boy.

godless:

How is Kerry different than Dean, except that he's lifeless and broke?

General Clark is no threat whatsoever; If he's the nominee, Bush and Co. will cut him to ribbons.

Clark has never run for political office, and military culture is the exact opposite of elective politics.

Clark's main claim to fame, the Kosovo pacification, will be easily jujitsu'd into a liability. The White House could point out that Clark was pushing for ground troops in Kosovo, but the fact that he succeeded without them "proves" that he didn't need them, and was a glory hound, power seeker, unsure and insecure, what-have-you.
Also, his infamous attempt to prevent the Russians from landing at the Pristina airport could be used to persuade voters that Clark has poor judgement. Although the full story is more complex, and possibly even shows Clark in a good light, it's improbable that the majority of voters will analyze it that deeply.

General Clark would probably be strongest as the Vice Presidential candidate, if indeed the Dems decide that they want any piece of him.

Good God! DId you write Dean in full meltdown BEFORE or after his horrendous speech (at 10:45 EST)?

That's all she wrote for him. He's freekin' nuts.

Andrew:

That speech was about what you'd expect from him, no?

Kerry and Edwards got plenty of running room to Dean's right on taxes and national security. And Angry Howie is, shall we say, a personally unattractive candidate. He looked, uh, less attractive than ever in defeat tonight.

Dean isn't quite finished. NH voters like to keep the fun going a little longer, so they might give Dean the second-place finish - or even a win - that he needs to keep his campaign alive. But if he crumbles behind both Kerry and Clark in New Hampshire, you can turn out the lights.

A win for Kerry in NH would make him look real strong for the nomination. He would give Bush a respectable race, though the good economic news this year should bring Bush home with a victory similar to Clinton's in 1996.

How is Kerry different than Dean, except that he's lifeless and broke?

How about trying this on: how was President Bush's Vietnam experience different from that of a hippie fleeing to Canada, except that he was rich and politically-connected?

It's a rare day that I disagree with OJ and agree with Godless Capitalist, but there is no doubt that Kerry is the last candidate that Rove wants to face.

Kerry's a tall Dukakis running against Reagan in '84. It's a blowout in the making.

John Kerry opposed the Vietnam war and helped tear the country apart, sentencing the people of Vietnam and Cambodia to communist slavery in the process. George W. Bush has liberated two countries. Whose national security experience do you choose?

>How about trying this on: how was President >Bush's Vietnam experience different from that of >a hippie fleeing to Canada, except that he was >rich and politically-connected?

No one cares. Clinton was a military-loathing draft dodger, and Bush I and Dole were both war heroes. But he won in 1992 since the economy was weak and Bush I broke "no-new taxes." He won in 1996 since the economy was good and he hadn't alienated his base.

The economy is good and Bush's base is happy, apart from unavoidable grumbling.

Therefore, game over.

MG - agree this is good news for Rove only under the assumption that the remaining 4-6 candidates beat each other up until the nomination. I think Rove would have preferred a clearly poor candidate like Dean getting the nomination.
OJ - Kerry's fundraising has been poor but watch it jump up if the Dems believe he's their best chance (and as Dean, Gephardt, others fall off)
THX - Agree Clark isn't a good candidate (as NRO says he's Dean with medals)
OJ - If Bush can paint Kerry as the 2nd coming of Dukakis it should be a repeat of 1988, perhaps a bit better given the improving economy.

Edwards gave by far the best speech tonight, far better than Kerry's. Unless of course, Dean gave the best speech, in that it'll put him stone out of the race. But Edwards was in fine form. I wonder if Kerry/ Edwards could give the Prez a run for his money. (Clark'll flame out)

And Kerry DOES look like an Ent!

WE ............. HAVE DECIDED ................ WE ............ DON'T .... LIKE ................ BUSH'S TAX CUTS ............. MASTER MERIODOC!

Kerry opposed the Contras, supported the Nuclear Freeze...

I know this prediction may seem out there, but I've read quite a few articles on the people powering the Dean campaign.

You heard it here first, but I predict at least 5 politically induced suicides of 18-25 year-olds should the Dean campaign collapse entirely. I think this will take place as he fades, and accelerate after he drops out.

This is not intended as humor (it's a tragedy). But I've met some of these kids, and it's scary.

It will be written up in a Sunday magazine some time in the summer.

The Dukakis-1988 and Clinton-1992 comparisons are non-sequiturs: (a) we weren't at war in 1992, therefore the foreign policy/military thing didn't matter, (b) Dukakis was defeated in part precisely because of his perceived ineptitude on the military. Let's see Bush bring up the military in a debate with Kerry: how many Americans are currently aware that their commander-in-chief was a Vietnam deserter? Not many, but I'll bet it's still a larger number than remembers what a "contra" or a "nuclear freeze" is!

Remind me, by the way, why it was appropriate for us to intervene in Vietnam while W.W.II was a mistake?

If I had to guess which of the two candidates Rove would least like to face, it would be Edwards. He showed more stability on his major positions during the months when things seemed to be slipping away, while Kerry was at times in panic mode, attempting to legaleeze away his votes in support of Bush on the war on terror and on Iraq.

That won't help come the fall, though to Kerry's credit, his war record (I think he served in Vietnam) would eliminate any need to consider someone like Wes Clark for VP if he does get the nomination (my money would be on Bill Richardson, to blunt Bush's efforts to attract more Hispanic votes to the GOP). Edwards has voted the right way on most of the major war/terror issues in the Senate, but may still need some military support on the VP slot if he wins the nomination.

As for Clark, his New Hampshire people probably have the brake shoes smelling of asbestos right now from stomping so hard on the pedal to turn things around after tonight's vote. They've spent the past two months trying to horde in on Dean's territory with gozno anti-Bush statements, in the hope that the "general" in front of his name would allow him to maintain foreign policy credibility no matter what he said. Now that the Democrats have shown they may not be willing to act like lemmings for Howard, Clark's got to make a hard shift back towards the center before voters in N.H. and the next few primary states start paying attention to what he's been saying since the middle of the fall.

Charlie, do you and, more importnatly, the American people really think that being a grunt (well, what, a Lt.?) in Vietnam qualifies one to lead America in war? Now, being Governor of Texas in the 1990s may well not either, but GW Bush sure seems to have a handle on the responsibilities now...

Charles:

Vietnam was a mistake, but leaving after we'd trashed it was worse. Isolationists supported WWII once FDR dragged us into it. The GOP sticks with even the wars it opposed.

Kerry meanwhile is a MA liberal and a Senator to boot--he has a voting record that will kill him everywhere--abolish the Agriculture Department was just the start.

He's even managed to talk out of both sides of his mouth so much on the Iraq War that you can make him look foolish on it.

Charles - the left has been pushing the Bush was a Vietnam deserter theme since he was a governor to no effect. Don't see why it would work now, especially after his performance since 9/11.

Charlie: It's not about service in the military (hint: remember Bill Clinton?), it's about leadership in a time of war.

Americans already distrust Dems on national security, and have for a long time. So long as Kerry continues to argue for treating terrorism as a criminal matter rather than a national security matter, he's extremely weak on the issue. Of course the President will bring it up, and beat him over the head with it.

Kerry would surely prefer to talk about national healthcare, of course, but avoiding national security altogether only lets Karl Rove define him as the weak and misguided on national security. If he opens his mouth on the topic, he does it for Karl Rove. Either way, the President wins.

The media will line up for Kerry and really campaign for him if he wins the nomination. They'd do that for anyone, but someone who may actually be electable (and I think he is - unfortunately) will be a real carrot for their CFR-busting propaganda habit.

I think Kerry/Richardson would be a steep hill to climb for Bush/Cheney.

I myself would never, ever vote for Kerry, but I've heard quite a few maroons say they won't vote for Bush after immigration reform, medicare reform, no child left behind etc. Those very maroons might just put a democrat in the White House and it's back to public opinion polling to run the War on Terror.

Is there a Kerry Health Care Bill that the Senate has ever voted on? What legislation has he passed?

"Americans already distrust Dems on national security, and have for a long time." This is true, but I'd argue that it has less effect on Kerry than the other Dems -- which is why I say he's the strongest candidate to beat Bush, not that he's a shoo-in.

Since when has the "winner" in Iowa gone on to bigger and better things? Wasn't the last one do to that the Georgian peanut farmer? And in exactly 192 hours people will be saying it's a two man race-- Lieberman and Clark, following their stronger than expected showings. Sheesh.

oj:

Kerry CAN use his wife's money, just not directly, and they'll have to be very careful with how they structure her support.
Assuming that she's willing to blow $ 100 million on his Quixotic quest.

John:

Edwards is a lightweight.
If he were a one-term Governor, maybe he'd have a ghost of a chance. Being a one-term Senator, and a fairly unpopular one, at that, is not a winning national formula.

If Edwards does well in NH, then he is the new Clinton - going against Tsongas II (Kerry). If Dean wins NH, then Kerry will have to win SC or he is done (too much gravitas to keep losing). I still don't believe that Clark is a serious candidate - but if he wins NH (or finishes second to Dean), then Kerry is really in trouble. And Reverend Al hasn't even started yet. His presence is worth probably 2% more votes for the GOP. Watch who Clyburn endorses in SC now that Gephardt is gone. Hint: it won't be Dean.

Kerry is too somber to be elected. Edwards wouldn't carry any southern states (no matter what the media says), so it would be like 1988, except the Dems take CA. But Edwards probably is at the top of the VP list now. While it usually doesn't mean anything (i.e., Bentsen v. Quayle), I am sure the DNC can't wait to spin Edwards v. Cheney.

Really, all the GOP has to do is continue to show pictures of Kerry with Ted Kennedy over and over again. Ted looked like a weary Falstaff tonight.

Yes THX 1138, and being a polician and a trial attorney puts him below a used car salesman.

I agree for the most part with Charles, except that I think Clark is significantly better than Kerry.

You guys are all forgetting one thing: the 9-11 Commission report in May. Kean is asking for two-three more months, which would put it in July or August.

The revelations are going to be big. Bush has done everything possible to stop Kean's investigation, to the point that Kean - a Republican - has openly protested to the press along with the rest of the commission. There is something there, and it does not look good for Bush.

My prediction is that if - if - Clark wins the nomination, he can really hammer Bush from the right on the Kean Commission findings and by forcing Bush to say the three words that he never ever says...the three most important words for US national security..."Osama bin Laden".

Also - all you guys talking about the inevitability of Bush - let's make this empirical.

1) Here is quantitative evidence in your favor. There was a massive post 9/11 rightward shift in Republican registration in virtually every state. Here's thelink.

2) But here is something *not* in your favor. All polls show that Bush's approval rating has only been artificially inflated by three events: 9/11, Iraq, and Saddam. After each event his approval rating steadily falls back down to the 50% range. He never shows a natural gain in popularity . See here.

And all accounts indicate that both his space and his amnesty proposals are a flop with the electorate. Amnesty in particular is going over like a lead balloon.

When people were asked whether the United States should make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens, 74 percent said no -- up from 67 percent in August 2001...

If casualties continue to pile up in Iraq, and the 9-11 Commission report is sufficiently bad, Bush is very vulnerable. His popularity is only going to decline as the year progresses.

OK, say that Bush never again rises over a 55% approval rating.
Will that unseat an incumbent President ?

Bush is certainly vulnerable to the unknown or unexpected, but suppose that everything continues as is, as events are wont to do:

More Americans die in Iraq, but fewer US troops are there, and life continues to improve for the average Iraqi, in fits and starts.

The US economy continues to improve, adding jobs, and the stock market climbs.

President Bush spends $ 200 million dollars explaining how he cut taxes and won two wars.

Does that sound like an environment favorable to a challenger, especially one who's battered and near bankrupt from a primary season steel cage match ?

Further, suppose that there IS another huge terror attack in the US.
Unless it can clearly be shown to result from some glaring deficiency in Bush's security plans, it's more likely to result in rally-'round-the-flag support for Bush, than a desire to put the new guy in charge.

Why do you believe that Osama is America's #1 security problem ?
In the first place, there's a pretty good chance that he's dead.
Secondly, it's the Al Qaeda organization that we really need to focus on, and that's fairly decentralized. Even if ObL IS dead, it may not much matter.
Third, Al Qaeda has been reduced to hitting soft targets in Muslim countries, which suggests that the US is pretty safe, for now.

godless:

All that matters is the economy.

Charles:

Kerry's got the worst national security record, other than Kucinich, of any candidate in the race. He's been wrong on every single big issue since he entered public life, including the recent war--which he voted for, then opposed.

Kerry doesn't help himself by constantly referring to Vietnam - it was an unpopular war. His theme will be "don't question my patriotism", but he can't say he fought with honor and then go and dishonor everything about what he (and so many others) did. If he wants to be the candidate "Born on the Fourth of July", then he will get the angry/disappointed veteran vote, and not much else.

His supposed backstop of knowledge on national security is full of holes (as previously pointed out).

THX --

Given the general unpopularity of the Democrats' major positions on many issues, having a candidate like Edwards with as little a public image as possible is probably an asset. A lightweight is better than a heavyweight whose main source of poundage is his own political baggage, though Karl Rove has a bunch of cash on hand to help define Edwards to the American public before he gets to define himself.

Is flying an f-16 in the National Guard equivalent to fleeing to Canada Charlie?

It was an F-106, but who's quibbling?

Kerry will be asked, again and again, what mission he has accomplished in the Senate to make America safer. He won't really have a good answer.

It's an article of faith on the left that the President was (descriptions vary) AWOL from his Air National Guard service or a deserter. What it seems to come down to (and I'm going from memory because I just don't want to have to wade through the websites I'd have to wade through to track this down again) is that he was assigned detached service for a month at a base in (I think) the Carolinas, the President says he was there and the commanding officer says he doesn't remember him. The paper trail is ambiguous.