In effect, because of Kerry's by then crushing momentum, the effective result will indeed be as if the subsequent primaries had been called off. We can't afford to demoralize any effective effort to create momentum for a rival and to slow down momentum for Kerry. Also, remember that this isn't a zero sum game. We want to expand the percentage of people voting for a good alternative to Kerry, not leave it in place or allow it to shrink. And momentum is the key to that process. Leave things as is by fragmenting the anti-Kerry vote and one is not dealing with a zero sum game. One is dealing with a universe where Kerry's momentum causes him to continually expand his support and accelerate his march toward victory.

It makes a huge difference. If two candidates get 14% apiece in a particular area then neither winds up with any delegates because you need 15% to attain viability and gain delegates to begin with. On the other hand, combine those 14% showings to create a 28% showing and you're not only guaranteed delegates but you've also achieved a respectable showing which has the potential to create momentum for a particular opponent and to slow momentum for Kerry. Remember too that positive momentum can only be conferred on a Kerry opponent if that Kerry opponent starts enjoying good showings at the expense of other Kerry opponents. In addition, remember that any momentum enjoyed by an anti-Kerry candidate usually will also cost Kerry momentum. Momentum is a zero sum game.

You're saying that it's more important if Kerry comes out with 10 delegates and Kucinich comes out with one delegate then if Kerry comes out with 11 delegates and the votes split between Edwards and Kucinich and one winds up with none in the anti-Kerry column. But that ignores the factor of momentum. Kucinich getting one or two delegates does nothing to slow Kerry's momentum or to confer momentum on a Kerry opponent. An across-the-board strong showing for a single Kerry opponent, on the other hand, confers momentum on a particular Kerry opponent and slows Kerry's momentum.

Because Dean now has no credibility as a candidate, so any votes for him will not have the Kerry-slowing effect that a significant showing for Edwards will have, in part because the numbers involved in such defections will probably be small. On the other hand, everyone's watching Edwards' totals very closely, and any time Edwards falls short of expectations that hurts the anti-Kerry cause and helps Kerry. On the other hand, because Dean's already been written off, votes for Dean instead of Kerry will most likely be written off. This is so because the reality of the situation is that the number of possible Kerry votes lost to Dean will probably be minuscule and therefore minuscule in their impact on Kerry, but the number of votes lost to Edwards, no matter how minuscule, will be much more noticeable. They will probably be more effective as well, since the chances are Edwards' totals will be greater than Dean's, to begin with.

I will also remind you that it won't take much to deprive Edwards of credibility. A 10% or 14% showing for Dean will do little or nothing to restore Dean's candidacy to credibility. But that 10% or 14% showing could be enough, if transferred to Edwards, to give Edwards viability for delegates, to give him a respectable second-place showing within single digits, or perhaps even to give Edwards his margin for victory. And one cannot make the same argument for Dean in reverse because, realistically, Dean has no momentum to build on and therefore probably won't be able to use that 10% or 14% showing to any great purpose. On the other hand, Edwards does have momentum on which he can build this week, due to his unexpectedly strong showing in Wisconsin, as well as the fact that many don't perceive him as a loser, which is unfortunately exactly how most perceive Dean. But let Edwards sink below the surface on Super Tuesday (by voting for Dean or whoever) and Edwards most assuredly will be perceived as a loser and we will have lost our window to stop Kerry.

A word too about the hope that Dean will somehow be resurrected if, in the wake of a Super Tuesday defeat, Edwards' candidacy dies. I don't buy it. In 1980, Kennedy came roaring back to life in the Democratic presidential contest in the last month, winning primary after primary. But it was too late. Carter still won the nomination because at that point the math was inexorable. But the math is not inexorable here. Only one quarter of the delegates have been selected, and if Edwards runs the table on the 9th with four Southern states, including the delegate-rich states of Texas and Florida, and then follows that up with a victory in the equally delegate-rich state of Illinois on March 16th, not only will the psychological momentum be reversed but the mathematical momentum will be reversed as well.

Fair question. In fact, I feel that Kerry would be an unsuccessful candidate and make a poor President, should he get in (though the latter remains unlikely, IMO).

Just look at what the Democrats are on the brink of offering us in a man like Kerry. A man who's accepted special interest money as long as your arm, who's had dealings with Johnny Chung, for crying out loud, whose record on fiscal discipline is as bad as Bush's and who spends far too much of his campaigning time sounding like a drone!

This is not who we need. And the Democrats are guilty of real hubris if they think a downer like this guy will defeat Bush! At least, Bush occasionally reminds us what a great country this is. When have you last heard Kerry say anything remotely like that? And. This. Is. A. Great. Country. Thank. You. Very. Much. That fact happens to be precisely why al-Qaeda is after us, by the way.

You may think these are crocodile tears, but I regret that Bush is damaged goods today. When he went into Afghanistan, he rarely let us forget why our country happened to be so special. If Bush has now outlived his usefulness in the global fight against al-Qaeda -- and I soberly believe he has -- I'd at least want him replaced by someone with some conception of just why this nation is so unique.

Kerry will never give us that in a month of Sundays!

Now I don't pretend that Edwards is perfect. But at least he is more of a centrist than the pathetic Kerry, as shown by Edwards' stricter voting stats in the Senate indicating a tighter eye on fiscal discipline than Kerry ever had. Edwards' previous history of campaign spending in the Senate is not a grotesque Who's Who of every sleazy contributor ever to darken the doors of besieged Congressional offices! And Edwards really has bothered to remind his listeners at every opportunity just how fortunate we are to live in this country, and what this country continues to mean to those under the heel of tyranny abroad.

Like Bush, Edwards seems to take the legacy of our country seriously. In doing that, he appears willing in his remarks to risk being called a sentimentalist even, especially among his own frequently jaded Democratic peers. And I admire that.

And what if a miracle happens and Kerry does get in?

Contrary to prevailing assumptions, it might not change our current (disastrous, IMHO) policies that much after all.

I was particularly alarmed by a point/counterpoint matchup on This Week on ABC today. It's available online at [link to ABC News dual interview].

It reflects -- IMO -- a considerably starker and, frankly, more significant contrast even than I was expecting. Yes, I already knew I preferred Edwards somewhat, when it comes to his philosophy. But I never ever imagined that the two would draw such an extreme contrast when it comes to the questions posed below. They come out farther apart than I even imagined, and the second I read this online, I figured your readers should probably see this startling and unexpected contrast for themselves. I was never quite expecting something like this!

I note here that Kerry's immediate reaction to that Bush sound bite is, "He states the obvious, which we all agree with" and then goes on to demur in certain respects and to elaborate. Edwards, on the other hand, seems more direct: "It shows a level of arrogance that's amazing about how we deal with the rest of the world". Kerry's first reaction is to recognize the sentiment as "obvious" -- something on which I cannot and will not agree with at all, frankly -- while Edwards' first remark appears to be unequivocal (and required, IMHO) outrage.

On the matter of preemption, Kerry's first words are "Every president, from the beginning of time, has had a sufficient doctrine of preemption" going on to put an historical gloss on the (quite radical, IMO) doctrine. Edwards' first words are "I would scrap the preemption doctrine" and he even goes on to imply that, institutionally, the President has always had all the artillery needed (institutional and otherwise) to keep America safe, with no apparent need for preemption -- in other words, ultimately finding pro-active non-consultative preemption unnecessary. Edwards not only responds from a more skeptical place emotionally, but appears to counter Kerry's historical gloss suggesting there is a precedent of sorts (!) for such a doctrine. And I find that refreshing and much needed -- IMO, of course.

These two contrasts do not constitute differences "around the margins" -- something I had been assuming about the two of them for quite a while -- but fundamentally different gut instincts about what this country is supposed to be all about!

I feel uncomfortable ignoring this, and I feel it's a safer bet going with the more straightforward and refreshing alternative that Edwards represents, both an electorally stronger candidate for the fall election and a stronger and more communicative and more inspirational leader as a President, IMO.