Joe Lieberman is NOT Jimmy Carter.

Sharpton-not a factor

Gephart-minor factor-will be out of the game early.

Kerry/Dean/Edwards/Graham one of these 4 guys will break out and win it all. My money is on Graham, followed by Dean, Edwards and Kerry.

Comparing Lieberman to Carter? C'mon. The reason for Carter's "massive publicity" after Iowa was his underdog status. Lieberman is a front-runner with little strong support, the worst position for a Democratic primary candidate. And Carter was "culturally conservative" in an anti-Watergate way, no comparison to Lieberman's positions and context.

The "Leave No Child Behind" fiasco is BIG news in NH. NH voters have been wrestling with school funding issues for years (it's the reason Shaheen wasn't popular enough to beat Sununu), and the unfunded mandate and loss of local control that is LNCB is becoming deeply unpopular there. Dean has always made his opposition to that bill clear; Kerry voted for it, didn't he?

I think the first to drop out will be Gephardt followed by Kerry after he loses New Hamphsire

I think Kerry will remain a strong candidate, even with his alleged "waffling" on the Iraq issue.

Consider this: after 9/11 part of "keeping America safe" was to make sure that a future 9/11-like incident did not entail WMD. Saddam is a crazy man. He has not been shy about his desire to obtain these weapons. Addressing the issue was going to be important.

What I believe Kerry objects to is HOW the administration chose to address it. Their bluster and bravado and "going it alone" attitude drove international support away from the U.S.

Kerry's proven ability to work behind the scenes (demonstrated by his quiet work picking up key endorsements and campaign staff) shows me that he is able to work quietly to build the coalition without scaring people away.

One way or another, Iraq and SH needed to be addressed, in Kerry's mind. The U.N. could establish its bonafides by doing *something* to enforce its resolutions, rather than just shrugging their shoulders (Not just Iraq resolutions. There are quite a few countries who routinely ignore them, like the U.S. and Isreal.).

I like Kerry for the nomination. I like Dean as well, but I think he's appealing to the peace-nik crowd which will help in the primaries, but not do much in a general election where security is going to be a big issue.

"I like Dean as well, but I think he's appealing to the peace-nik crowd which will help in the primaries, but not do much in a general election where security is going to be a big issue"

KLong: mostly I agree with your post about Kerry, I think he'll stay a strong candidate and I think his organization will be formidable. But I have to disagree with your statement about Dean. He bashes Bush for being ineffective, not as a "peacenik." (Why does everyone keep putting Dean far to the left of where he really is?) His point is that Bush's go-it-alone, damn-"Old Europe"-and-the-rest-of-the world style does us great harm. And his criticism of the Iraq resolution from the beginning was not that we shouldn't do anything about SH, but that it gave Bush too much leeway to pursue a dangerous and ineffective course. Basically he's saying something similar to Kerry, only he's saying that he's been consistent with it. This points out the problem Senators face vs. Governors; Senators have to vote on these things. Although I'm still not convinced Dean can totally overtake Kerry's advantages in NH, it's starting to look a lot more competitive and we're still a year out.

BTW, I agree with above; Gephardt first. Maybe that's all before pretty late in the primary season. And it's going to be getting late for Graham pretty soon.

It's difficult to see both Kerry and Dean emerging out of New Hampshire. If Gephardt is going to be the first to be eliminated, as posited above, it will be because someone else won the Iowa caucuses. If that person is either Kerry or Dean, then that guy will probably ride the momentum to also win New Hampshire, finishing off the other guy and Lieberman to boot. Then the New Hampshire winner faces off with Edwards in South Carolina for an elimination match to decide the nomination. The only two ways out of this scenario are: 1) for the NH winner to win other primaries that move up to South Carolina's date so that the Edwards-NH winner match-up continues for another week or two, or (b) to run an unconventional campaign that can survive the fundraising hit that would come with losing so many primaries. That's possible, but nobody's pulled it off in recent memory.

Brian: I think people are putting Dean to the left of where he really is because that's where he is putting himself. You are quite correct that Dean has the advantage of not having to vote on the resolution. The ones who did have to vote had to reconcile security concerns with a mistrust of the Bush administration. Had we been dealing with a Clinton or Gore presidency, the trust for propertly handling the powers that the resolution gave would have been there.

I do like Dean. I've seen him speak twice now (NARAL and the Linn County dinner). The line about "try to keep girls out of school" was pretty far out there though, and is a potential indicator that while his ability to speak on the fly is a breath of fresh air given our current resident's struggle with the English language and issues - it will also increase the likelihood of future gaffs like that one.

Two things have me liking Dean more than Kerry: (1) the fire in his eyes when he speaks - we need that kind of fire in a candidate. It's something you surely don't see with someone like Joe Lieberman. We did see it in Sharpton at the NARAL speeches, and it was an impressive display. (2) His ability to speak in the language of the "average American". I think this might be a problem for John Kerry - the struggle to connect in a speech with regular people (although he did well in Iowa). Dean is like a much more competent G.W. in that people will LIKE him.

Edwards is still an unknown quantity with me. My initial inclination, and it hasn't dissipated, is that he is premature in his reach for the presidency.

I can't see any other candidates out there that could break into being a major candidate. So we are left with the top five: Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Dean, and Lieberman. The others (Sharpton, Kucinich, Graham, Hart, Clark, Mosley-Braun, Dodd, and Biden)are all minor candidates with no real chance.

Voting with the majority here, I agree that Gephardt will be the first to go. He already is having a problem in Iowa in that despite being the most known candidate there he's close to being tied for first there with Kerry and Lieberman. I've heard fund-raising has also been a problem. Rep. Kucinich (Dem-Ohio) running as a spoiler would kill Gephardt's campaign.

<><>
Logan