Dean/Clark/Kerry/Edwards

Well that's what it's come down to after the dramatic surge by Kerry and Edwards (and the equally dramatic plunge by Dean). Now its on to NH. It looks like Gephardt is out tomorrow and I think Lieberman will be gone after NH.

What's going to be interesting is if Clark can weather the post Iowa bounce that Kerry and Edwards are going to get and make a strong showing in NH. If he can, then its a four man race for a while. The next week is going to be interesting.

Comments

[Robin]

Here's something I don't understand, that is, I don't understand why people are this eating up...

A couple of weeks ago, when everyone thought Dean would win Iowa, EVERYONE was crowing on and on about how Iowa meant NOTHING. So, when Clark announced he wouldn't campaign there, no one batted an eyelash. Because Iowa, supposedly, meant nothing.

So now Kerry wins, and suddenly "the Earth has moved" and "Dean has taken a huge questionable dip." Okay, assuming I'm willing to eat the hypocrisy of many pundits who are flip flopping on this, I'm still wondering why no one is now saying anything about Clark's absence in the race.

You can't have it both ways; either Clark not being in Iowa is negligible, OR, it is important. And if now everyone suddenly thinks Iowa IS important and that Dean took a hurting, why isn't anyone saying something like "crucial error that Clark decided not to show up for Iowa."

Where's the logic?? In the end, I say all this not to highlight any fault on Clark, but MORE to highlight the spin around Kerry. Meaning: why is everyone trying to sell us on the idea that Kerry is suddenly viable if just last week the word was that "Iowa means nothing." Where's the logic??

This is all SPIN.

Reality: the race is still about Clark and Dean. Edwards and Kerry are no-starters. But, Edwards "is" looking like good Vice material.