I totally agree, Dan, this is great fun. How would you handicap the field as of now? I'll take a plunge because I've already made a horse's ass of myself so many times.

DEAN -- least likely to win nomination, peaked too soon.

CLARK -- seemed like a comer, but may be stalled

KERRY -- back in the game (who'd a thunk it?)

EDWARDS -- watch this one, good showings in Iowa and NH lead to victories in the South. Could be the ultimate winner.

WINNER BY A NOSE --- "SEABISCUIT" (No this is not an Academy Award prediction)

“I argued a year ago that the Democratic candidate that attracted the heavyweight foreign policy advisors would be the putative nominee.”

Damn, I wish I had originally thought of that. Maybe there is something, after all, to be said for an advanced degree in political science.

Remember Peggy Lee’s song, “Is that all there is?” The following guys are a bunch of losers. They are going nowhere fast:

““DEAN -- least likely to win nomination, peaked too soon.”

Howard Dean is still the front runner. My money is on him to pull it off. He actually detests George W. Bush---and that’s an important “virtue” to those who will ultimately choose the Democrat presidential nominee.

“CLARK -- seemed like a comer, but may be stalled”

The man will not be able to withstand intense scrutiny. Clark is dead and somebody has forgotten to bury the body.

“KERRY -- back in the game (who'd a thunk it?)”

Nope, this is his last hurrah. Have you seen his northeastern poll numbers? They are pathetic to say the least.

EDWARDS -- watch this one, good showings in Iowa and NH lead to victories in the South. Could be the ultimate winner.””

Everybody “likes” John Edwards. But who truly respects him? Edwards, though, would make a good kid brother for somebody.

Dan;

I'm seeing chatter that up to 1/3 of the primary voters there, are as yet undecided.As such, my take is that the closeness of this 'race' is due to the idea thta the Iowans can't figure out which of the candidates they hate less.

Candidates:

Howard Dean
Has Patrick Buchanan Disease - he can get 1/3 of the primary vote, but can't seem to get past that mark. Peaked too early. I give him 1 chance in 5 at this point - his shot is that Gephardt and/or Kerry drop out and endorse him to block Edwards, or each other.

Wesley Clark
Never has run before. It shows. Not ready for prime time, and by March 2, will be polling Sharpton-type numbers. 1 in 20, if everyone endorses him as the "no Dean" choice, out of inertia.

Richard Gephardt
Opposite problem - we've seen him too many times. Unions love him, everyone else thinks he's boring/an idiot. 1 in 10 -if Dean crashes out and endorses him.

John Edwards
Everybody's kid brother = Everybody's VP? 1 in 10 for the presidency, odds on for the VP slot. May "broker" a divided convention.

John Kerry
Stands for nothing, and everything. Has its advantages on the campaign trail. Triangulation was perfected by W.J. Clinton, after all. 1 in 3.

Al Sharpton
Uh, no shot. 1 in 100, which are the odds everyone else dies in a terrorist attack on the convention. (Al spoke day 1, everyone else day 2.)

Dennis Kucinich
Well, he could still catch fire in California or something. 1 in 100.

Joe Lieberman
His only chance is as a dark horse. Clark crashes, and the DNC/DLC has to pick a candidate at a divided convention. Hasn't happened in a while. 1 in 10.

"Field"
A divided convention causes someone else to be reached for. HRC, Cuomo, pick a name. 1 in 10.

My "money" is on Kerry, my hope on Edwards. Chances of any of these guys beating Bush? 1 in 4.

Chances of uncertainty going into the convention -1 in 3, which is way up from 2 weeks ago.

I have to say that Clark's entrance into the race sort of throws the foreign policy advisor as predictor plan a bit out of whack. Obviously, Clark is much more in need of domestic policy advice than are his opponents, and rather less in need of FP advive, so it's natural that he wouldn't have invested much effort into securing top-tier help on this score.

clearly the artifact of a terribly weak selection pool.

Orson Scott Card long ago wanted Edwards; the lack of press means the lack of specific reasons against him.
Dean peaked too soon. Lieberman should have tried an Iowa eCampaign; for practice, and to be real.

As long as Edwards stays nice, his opponents will mostly fight each other, angrily and meanly. He DOES look more JFK-like than any, and he COULD carry some Southern States. I'm guessing (hoping?) he gains.

Robert Musil has some interesting thoughts about whether the Zogby poll might be tweaking the Iowa numbers for dramatic reasons. He doesn't have a specific link to the individual article, but its called "Iowa Turmoil" and is about midway down the page
here.

Y'all are forgetting that Dean earned Ann Richards' endorsement on Larry King last night.

It's an inevitability.

If what these candidates are saying is a reflection of what their foreign policy advisors are telling them then they all need to be kept as far away as possible from the White House.

George Soros--philanthropist (?)

Is that what they're calling robber barrons now?

I agree with Dan, Soros does not enhance Gephardt's list. On the other hand, Lee Hamilton (my old boss) and Michael O'Hanlon absolutely DO! To my mind, Gephardt has lost a tremendous opportunity to stake a claim to a serious, far-reaching foreign policy change. Go to his web-site, where he asks "what is your number one policy concern?" there is no option for foreign policy/national security. This kept me from donating time and money, and keeps me in the undecided column.

And by the way, I had dismissed Kerry as unelectable on the basis of last year's blistering profile of Theresa Heinz Kerry. But next to Judity Steinberg Dean THK is Donna Reed!

And for those who think Kerry can't parlay this into a surge countrywide, let's remember--nothing succeeds like success.

"Dennis Kucinich
Well, he could still catch fire in California or something. 1 in 100."

No way. Did you miss something? This is Schwarzenegger country. 1 in 10000 out here.
Bush has a solid chance to take the general.

A nice person might feel sympathy for Kelli’s existential meltdown. Thank God, that I’m not a nice person and therefore can sadistically enjoy her torment! This is much better than beating up people in wheelchairs. She is desperately trying to find a viable Democrat presidential candidate. So much so, Kelli is now toying with the possibility of John Kerry being her knight in shining armor. Wow, don’t let her get close to a straight razor or a bottle of downers. John Kerry, foreign policy leader willing to tell the Old Europeans to go to hell? A man who will do his utmost to fight our nation’s enemies? Yeah, and Pete Rose never bet on baseball.

Senator Joseph Lieberman is the only Democrat deserving serious consideration. The rest of this motley crew is unworthy of respect. The Democrats have most certainly become the party of economic protectionism. I now wonder if a dishonest pacifism has been added to their litmus test. And no, I don’t think I’m indulging in rhetorical overkill.

What successes can this foreign policy cabal advising the Democrats point to that establishes their credibility on anything ... The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq, international terrorism, North Korea, Haiti, Somalia, their sellout to China, their delayed entrance into the Bosnian conflict? This is the peanut gallery advising the clowns.

David T --

I know you are a raving partisan zombie, whose capacity for independent thought has been sucked dry through some perfidious Karl Rove experiment, but, nonetheless, try to empathize with those of us who are not happy to watch our president deficit spend away our country's ability to deal with the challenges that await it in 2010 or 2015. Because it appears that the Democrats have lost their foreign policy minds, I will probably vote for Bush. Because I believe the Demos think the evil we face out of the middle east is manageable, not really that big a deal, and all we need to do to combat it is make big frowny faces at Pakistan and the Saudis, and big Atlantic Alliance smiley faces with the EU. The Democratic elite doesn't really believe in evil, and really don't understand anyone who would label a current political philosophy by that name. With a Dean or Clark foreign policy, terrorism will just be another crime to be handled by Interpol or the UN or the International Court, and hopefully all will be lovey dovey.

But it's going to be hard to cast that Bush vote without grinding my teeth into sawdust. Because 2010 is looking awfully bleak...It's just, with Bush, I feel like I'm more likely to be here in 2010.

(But let's impeach Bush retroactively in 2009 for fibbing about WMDs. Because it sure looks like he at least showed a reckless disregard for the truth in the runup to war.)

David T.,
Your psychosis is so intense, it makes sane people want to know exactly who you intend to vote for, then cancel out your vote with our own.

If you do not know enough about the people listed on the linked article to distinguish between the birdbrains and the serious, distinguished foreign policy experts, kindly keep your mouth shut. Lee Hamilton served for years as the Chair of the House International Relations Committee. He is co-chairing the 9/11 commission, and is head of the Woodrow Wilson Center here in DC. His standing by Gephardt means something to anyone who is looking for good character references. That's all Dan or anyone else is trying to point out here.

Get over yourself already.

“...but, nonetheless, try to empathize with those of us who are not happy to watch our president deficit spend away our country's ability to deal with the challenges that await it in 2010 or 2015.”

I completely agree with you regarding President Bush’s deficit spending. This must be tackled in the near future. Unfortunately, I doubt if anything will be done seriously until after the election. Sadly, our current White House occupant is willing to bribe voters. This does not exactly thrill me, but we indeed do have bigger fish to fry.

Balancing the budget, though, is not our greatest economic threat. The trade protectionists are far more dangerous. The willingness to allow the destruction of outdated jobs is mandatory if one desires economic growth. The recent emphasis on budget balancing is merely a smoke screen. Do you really believe that any of the Democrat candidates will bring the national budget under control? Also, do you understand Joseph Schumpeter's creative destruction thesis?

DT--

Clinton and the GOP Congress did bring the budget under control. It's more than any GOP president was able to accomplish in the last 40 years. So, on past performance, I actually do believe the Democrats have a better shot at balancing the budget. They've actually done it, as opposed to just talking about it.

(As for this lot of candidates -- it's another reason my teeth are turning to sawdust)

I dislike the Demos propensity for protectionism, but believe the actual policies any one of them (excluding Gephardt -- who makes protectionism a priority) will be less drastic than you choose to imagine.

As for creative destruction... Well, I went to an Ivy League school, so my mediocre intellect cannot handle such stuff....

“If you do not know enough about the people listed on the linked article to distinguish between the birdbrains and the serious, distinguished foreign policy experts, kindly keep your mouth shut. Lee Hamilton served for years as the Chair of the House International Relations Committee.”

I am not making fun of Lee Hamilton. My point is that he is offering advice to folks who have no interest in listening to him. I’m not talking about the typical Democrat. The activists, though, involved in choosing their party’s nominee could care less what either Hamilton or Michael O'Hanlon have to say. If push comes to shove--they might even perceive them as war mongers! Excuse me, but didn’t you even mention that Richard Gephardt doesn’t dare mention foreign policy on the first page of his website?:

“To my mind, Gephardt has lost a tremendous opportunity to stake a claim to a serious, far-reaching foreign policy change. Go to his web-site, where he asks "what is your number one policy concern?"

http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/Welcome/*

“Clinton and the GOP Congress did bring the budget under control. It's more than any GOP president was able to accomplish in the last 40 years. So, on past performance, I actually do believe the Democrats have a better shot at balancing the budget. They've actually done it, as opposed to just talking about it.”

You are talking about the distant past. The Bill Clinton of 1992 would never get chosen today as the Democrat Party’s standard-bearer.

“I dislike the Demos propensity for protectionism, but believe the actual policies any one of them (excluding Gephardt -- who makes protectionism a priority) will be less drastic than you choose to imagine.”

I strongly disagree with you on this point. The current Democrat Party activists are gung ho protectionists. Robert Rubin and Brad Delong are considered to be Bush Lite Republicans who need to be shown the door. They no longer have any significant influence. In case you haven’t noticed---Joseph Lieberman doesn’t stand a chance of winning the nomination. He was your last hope!

-- Clinton and the GOP Congress did bring the budget under control. It's more than any GOP president was able to accomplish in the last 40 years. --

This is because every GOP president in the last 40 years had to work a Demoratic congress.

"Schwarzenegger country." Thanks for that, Roger; I haven't had a good belly laugh in days. I'm trying to picture Dubya riding to re-election on Schwarzenegger's coattails, but I just can't keep a straight face long enough.

I will say this, though: Gephardt has to win Iowa, or he's done for. Dean can survive a second-place showing, and can even walk away from third place with a reasonable shot at the nomination. Kerry and Edwards get a bounce from Iowa no matter where they finish at this point. But Gephardt is *supposed* to win Iowa, and then present himself as the Dean alternative; if the outcome in Iowa doesn't juice his fundraising, Gephardt will be out of the race.

How long has it been since this many candidates had a legitimate shot at winning Iowa this late in the day?

If it every happened, it was before the 1972 election.

What I found most interesting about the list is that the only vaguely military/defense person on Kerry's list is General Kennedy. I'm a Dean supporter myself, but the prospect of a woman as secretary of defense is rather intriguing.

As a politics junkie, I love what's going on in Iowa. Four candidates with roughly the same level of support the wekend before the caucus? That's awesome, baby!! How long has it been since this many candidates had a legitimate shot at winning Iowa this late in the day?

Great, except that they're all full blown socialists.