Where do I start? Yes, the Edwards surge was built on more than a "foundation of sand." And the big Dean organization couldn't pull it together. You can debate the reasons for the third-place finish-- I know the campaign itself fell down but I can't discount media hostility as a contributing factor. Kerry seemed to be in the right place at the right time. Gephardt... I almost felt sorry for Gephardt. Almost.

I have to deal with The Speech. First of all, I'm sure Dr. Dean is a classic-rock fan-- he knows that the crowd goes crazy when Daltrey screeches near the end of Won't Get Fooled Again, I'm certain that was what he was going for.

Seriously. Here's how I saw it. Most of the people in the room the night of the caucus were stunned at 3rd place. Many of them weren't longtime political operatives, and must have been thoroughly depressed at the results. As I saw it, Dean came out with the intention of rallying the crowd to not give up-- to keep the enthusiasm going. And yes, things got slightly wacky. But still... are we deciding national elections based on stuff like this? Or, even though I'm not going to dwell on this, upon the fact that Dean's wife is so weird she actually wants to do her job instead of crisscrossing Iowa and New Hampshire?

Also, when did showing enthusiasm become a bad thing, especially when you are trying to persuade a nation to support you? The funny thing is that, watching the Kerry and Dean speeches on caucus night, sound muted, no idea who won or lost, you'd never have dreamed that the tall guy won and the short guy lost. And that, more than anything else, is what worries me about Kerry as a nominee. He has the best resume (even though if we picked presidents on resumes, it would be President Gore running for a 2nd term), and he has the military aura ("Bring it on" is a great line, though it already sounds too rehearsed), and he may even possibly be the most progressive candidate who could actually win (sorry, Dennis), but... from what I've seen of him his speeches and campaign demeanor are too often just meandering. So what we could have is a Massachusetts liberal with difficulty conveying passion in public, and I've seen that movie before, in 1988.

Say what you will about Dean, but I think a forceful manner has its value when any campaign is going to go up against the Republican campaign machinery, and will be trying to change the minds of people who voted for Bush in 2000, haven't exactly gotten what they expected, but are still reluctant to vote against a president in a time of crisis. I'm not convinced Kerry is the most electable candidate, even though that is a lot of what is fueling his candidacy now. Why is he considered, in all the polls, the most electable? Because he's winning. Three weeks ago, the same polls had Dean running best against Bush. You could make an argument that under the right circumstances, Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, or Lieberman could win-- it just depends upon the type of campaign they want to run, and on blind luck.

Enough ranting. On to Ned Hampshire. Just after Iowa, it looked like a Kerry blowout and a Dean collapse... which it still could be. But at least some of the polls show the race tight now, primary morning. I think Dean is benefitting from two things: a natural rebound after the freefall that followed Iowa, and more positive press coverage as the BSDs of the media considered whether they were too harsh in the Iowa aftermath. (Incidentally, that term is gold... Thank you, Senator Kerry! If you don't know, Kerry called the higher-echelon media execs who latched on to the campaign as the Iowa surge the "big swinging..." uh, "penises".)

The problem for Dean is that Kerry is, to use a sports metaphor, playing error-free ball. Not much erosion of his vote. So I figure Kerry will win New Hampshire. It looked like Dean might pick up enough ground to allow him to claim a strong second. But the early morning polls all seem to be heading the same way, toward a big Kerry win.

The third-place race has gotten crowded. As I forecast last week, and I should get some credit for this, Kerry's explosion in the polls sucked all the oxygen out of the Clark campaign. He also was not impressive in this week's debate. Edwards is following his Iowa pattern and coming on at the last minute. The polls say that Lieberman is competitive for third place too, but I just don't see it.

KUCINICH: Will also lose. Though, I have to admire him for keeping up the fight. He told a news crew this week that once the convention deadlocks in Boston, it will naturally turn to him. Yes!

Today is Iowa caucus day. The kickoff to the 2004 election season. On this page I am going to keep a running account of my opinions-- the good, the bad, and the ugly... And, of course, I'm going to try to successfully predict what's going to happen before it happens.

I am a Howard Dean supporter. Why, since I called him "risky"? Risky is good sometimes. I believe Dean does have the potential to lose in a landslide if he is nominated, but he's also the only Democrat running who has a real chance to come on and beat Bush. Kerry and Edwards may be decent candidates, but I'm not sure they realize that they will have to strap on their political brass knuckles to compete with Karl Rove. Dean gets it. It's also important to me that Dean is not running from the "insider" wing of the party, which has been only too cozy with Bush on any number of issues. Even if Dean were a radical liberal, the insider/outsider dynamic is more important than the liberal/moderate one.

I'm actually not going to dwell too much on polemics here... I'm just trying to guess who's going to win! But, over the course of the next year, it's likely that some of this will come out...

Now, tonight in Iowa. Polls have been all over the place. The consensus seems to be that Kerry and Edwards are up, with Kerry in the lead. Dean appears to have been slipping but is headed back up. And then there's the weird caucus structure on top of everything. You see, as the finest journalists in the world have been condescendingly explaining, many Iowans may not leap at an opportunity to help select the next president because they will miss that evening's Everybody Loves Raymond.

There are polls, and then there is the organizational strength. Who's got the ability to get their supporters out? "Soft" support for Edwards or Kerry could end up not showing. Here is where Dean and Gephardt have an advantage, which might counteract the polls. I have seen that Joe Trippi is claiming-- I don't know whether this is a public claim or a private estimate that eventually got mentioned on the Dean weblog-- that he has identified enough solid support for Dean that unless turnout is 135,000 or more, Dean wins. Bravado, or supreme confidence? I wish I knew.

The stakes: What will the results mean for everybody? Dean doesn't have to depend upon a win in Iowa... with his money, he can move on no matter what. But a win in Iowa would almost seal a win in New Hampshire, which would lead to wins in the next round of primaries and probably wrap up the nomination early. A loss-- especially a 3rd place or lower finish-- puts New Hampshire back in play, and opens up an opportunity for "Stop Dean" movements.

Gephardt has to win in Iowa to have any chance later on. As it is, it's hard to see where he could break through. A loss, and it may be the final nail in the coffin for the political career of one of my least favorite Democrats.

Kerry can get by with even a strong second place finish in Iowa, which could give him momentum in New Hampshire. Still, he has put so many resources into Iowa that a win might be the only thing that gets contributions flowing again, and helps him in the February primaries. Anything lower than second means he will be out by Valentine's Day.

Edwards: Out of the blue since the Des Moines Register endorsement. Edwards can probably survive a loss in Iowa better than anybody except Dean, since he has South Carolina and other southern states to fall back upon. Anything in the top 3 would be gravy.

Wesley Clark is the Man Who Isn't There in Iowa, but his candidacy has a lot at stake too. Two weeks ago, it looked like he was positioning himself to be the main Dean alternative, starting in New Hampshire. Now, those plans might be scrambled. If Kerry gets a bump coming out of Iowa, it keeps him in the race, and wrecks Clark's positioning.

I see the Edwards surge built on a foundation of sand. Nevertheless, a strong 4th place is better than he could have expected 2 weeks ago. Gephardt's organization will get people out, but not enough-- 3rd place for him. Between Dean and Kerry for first... Dean has the organization (Oh, how I wish I could get my hands on a "Perfect Storm" cap!), Kerry has the late push. Historically, it's the organization that's made the difference. I also think that Tom Harkin's endorsement has been invaluable. I say that by a tiny margin, Dean "wins" Iowa-- but that it doesn't give him a win convincing enough to "run the table".