Reply #5: I agree with your observations [View All]

[karynnj]

I agree with him that Kerry can be seen as anti-war - especially if Feingold implodes before the primaries (I don't think this will happen, but I do think it will be very hard to be the spot lighted leader of the left for 2 years.) Gore really does seem to have no interest in subjecting himself to the pain of a run again. I find it interesting that he did not place Edwards there - it looks like Edwards wants to be there, but he was pretty pro-war throughout 2003 and there far too much video exists on that.

I agree that the point on the caucuses could be any well funded candidate. Imagine that instead of Hillary, Feingold or Kerry come number 2 in Iowa. This assumes that Vilsack gets the party vote and the much of the "DLC" vote, the remaining votes are to the left and it's always been said the left is over represented there. Let's assume it's, Kerry. Two things happen: Hillary will have underpreformed expextations and many people who thought highly of Kerry in 2004 and felt he couldn't win will be more open with their view that he's ok. If the party offical quoted in the NH article saying that Kerry was well liked in NH and all the MA Kerrycrats cross the border to help DD, Kerry could win NH. Then if he did well in Nevada or Colorado, he would be the leading candidate. Especially if South Carolina splits nearly in thirds to Edwards, Hillary, and Warner - so none get a huge number of delegates. (You can make the same points with Feingold.)