Nice photos. It doesn't really matter when the three of them drop out. And I, for one, hope Sharpton takes any delegates he can pick up all the way to the convention. Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry are on the clock. In that order. Gephardt can't survive a third place finish in Iowa without coming back and winning South Carolina (not gonna happen - he's gotta do it in Iowa). Edwards can't survive third place in South Carolina. Lieberman can't come in fourth in the first three primary and caucus states and stay in without getting a serious talking to from the party and his first shot at second or third is South Carolina (not gonna happen). Kerry can stick around if he can manage third place in each of those races. It's way below previous expectations, but this isn't a normal race. Some third guy's gonna hang in and wait for Dean and Clark to stumble. Could be Edwards, Lieberman or Gephardt if they really made some sudden noise, but can anyone see that happening? I think Kerry's gonna get one last look and come up wanting. And ultimately (though it's way too early to say), I think it's gonna be Clark. I really, really hope it's Dean instead though.
It does matter when they drop out. They are taking up time from other candidates. Instead of hearing from Kerry , Clark , and Dean ( the three front runners) for 20 minutes each, their time gets cut in half by Braun, Kucinch , Lieberman and Sharpton. John Edwards will stay in through South Carolina no matter what. If he doesnt do well there, he's toast. Gephardt , I believe, will be gone after New Hampshire. Kerry is going to get a boost in NH after getting the support of Jean Shaheen, their former governor. Clark, Dean, and Kerry will be the final three to battle it out. Since more moderate democratic states will be left in the primaries, I think it will come down to Clark and Kerry. But then again, Howard Dean may move further to the center after NH. But it IS waay too early to tell.
President: Kerry, Clark or Dean Vice President: Edwards (Kerry) or Clark (Kerry, Dean). Don't have a good vibe on who'd pair up with Clark at the top. Anyway, Edwards is running for VP. None of the others have a chance at anyhting, though I would like to see Sharpton as the head WH speechwriter.
Two candidates in this race have shown momentum. Ever. Dean and Clark. Can anyone imagine something drastic (and drastically good) changing in the campaigns of any of these other guys? I, for the record, cannot. Barring a new entry, this has to come down to the only two guys who've caused even the slightest excitement (and they've both caused plenty). I know it's early, but I've been watching this thing. I know who Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman are and they're not going to change enough for it to matter (and if they did, they'd be Gore 2000). I don't know Edwards well enough and think he might be able to inspire passion if he got some attention but he's just not going to get it. There's too much other good, interesting stuff going on. It doesn't matter what happens for Gephardt in NH. It's all about Iowa (then presumably South Carolina) for him. He needs Iowa at least to keep money coming in to pay his staff and to get the big union backing, which is all he's got going for him right now. If he wins Iowa, he can come in fifth in NH and he'll still be around. I seriously doubt he can take Iowa though. I agree with you about Edwards. He was insane to give up his Senate seat and the party was insane to pressure him to all so they could run Erskine Bowles. Edwards woulda kept the seat; Bowles'll lose it. I don't really know how you can call Kerry one of the frontrunners. Everything about his campaign so far has gone badly and he's below expectations from any angle. The only thing he's got going is leftover, presumed frontrunner status and the fact that he's a little less yesterday than Gephardt. I can't speak to the Clark thing yet. No one else can either. Except to say that he's real. The big mistake here though is applying any conventional wisdom to Dean. You just can't do it. He might very well lose -- he might even come in third, though I frankly don't see how. But it is pure folly to use old rules in assessing his campaign. His campaign is an entirely new phenomenon, his voters are an entirely new breed of voters. They have their own reasons for being there and they have their own rules. Nearly all of them volunteer and most of them give money. And they will all vote with friends in tow. I have a feeling Clark might know what he's dealing with in Dean, but the others definitely don't. And that's pretty much why they've already lost.
Agree, in the sense that right now Kerry's the Dem establishment backup should Dean or Clark really screw up. I'll get to vote here in NM fairly early... I know my wife's going for Clark, but I'm not sure yet. Doesn't really matter though, as I'll throw all my support to the nominee regardless. This is not an election where Democrats can allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
I don't think we'll have that problem. I think the guy most likely to beat Bush is going to win. I also really think that guy's either Clark or Dean. And I also don't know which. I hope it's Dean, but if Clark's good enough to get it I'm sure he'll be good enough for me to enthusiastically support. The other guys, not so much.
As for me, I just hope Kucinich and Sharpton can stay in it as long as they can. No, I don't think either of them has even the slimmest chance of winning (or becoming vp), but they make for great debates. Especially Sharpton. They are much closer to my views. I want one of them still in it in March, so I can vote for him. -That is unless it's a dead heat between a candidate I like enough (Dean, Clark) and a candidate I can't stand (Lieberman, Edwards). I'm pretty indifferent about Kerry and Gephardt. By the way, I really don't understand what Mosely-Braun is doing. I'd love to support her (at least as much as Kooch and the Rev.) but she has yet to give me a single reason. It's very frustrating.
