Here is the apparent kossian conventional wisdom of the democratic nomination. Editing suggestions appreciated. The document could conceivably be reposted periodically for the benefit of newbies.
One of the biggest arguments of the democratic campaign can be reduced to: "What is electable?" As of now, there are two general approaches to answering this question, and there is the expectation that this will result in two approaches: The Dean approach, and the anti-Dean approach. This may or may not reduce down to a race between one candidate from each camp.
The anti-Dean approach is comprised by looking at the what the national mood is right now and in the recent past, and looking at who is the best fit for the openings that creates. This group includes: Clark, Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt. Each candidate has taken a very diagnostic approach to the race, for instance by judging that America is going to require a candidate that can go toe-to-toe with Bush on foreign policy, in the case of the first three. Of this group, Clark has the advantage due to not being hampered either by the perceptions of being beaten by or collaborating with Bush legislatively.
The Dean approach is less about judging openings for candidacies, and more about attempting to open up new space for new messages. It attempts to change how people are thinking. This group includes: Dean, Kucinich, and Moseley-Braun. Of these three, Dean is the only one that has built up enough credibility to compete nationally.
This leaves Sharpton and Edwards, neither of which fit either definition. Sharpton is mostly an agitator, and Edwards has sought to remain above the fray. Neither is competing nationally at this time.
Here are the general views the kossian community has of each of the candidates:
Dean has the most support. His campaign is exciting and has a lot of potential. Dean is tough, seems to have an uncanny sense of political timing, and a teflon coating. He's often called the least electable of the major candidates, going by the diagnostic non-Dean definition of electability. He's also often called the only electable candidate, going by the "creates-new-space" definition of electability.
Clark has significant support as well. He's tough, articulate, intelligent, and doesn't back down. Clark's campaign instincts are not great, but are seen as improving. He is often mentioned as a potential V.P. candidate if he doesn't win.
Lieberman is usually hated due to the nature of his attacks against other candidates. Occasionally his support rebounds as he is skilled at coming across as reasonable when he wants to. There are quite a few people who say he might as well be a Republican, and that he's the only Democrat they wouldn't vote for if he won, but they don't really mean it.
Edwards is by far the favorite "second choice" among kossians, although this support declined following his out-of-character attack on Dean about the confederate flag. His support is as low as Lieberman's and Kerry's in the early states, but he has a regional advantage, giving him an outside chance of competing in the later phases of the race, especially if Gephardt is knocked out early. He's also the son of a millworker.
Gephardt is generally respected, with the exception of the nature of his attacks, which many people believe were cheap shots and misrepresentations. There actually aren't very many Gephardt-specific opinions expressed on dailykos, in comparison to the other candidates. There is, however, a concern about him becoming the nominee given how weak he has seemed in previous years as House Leader.
Kerry is a respected congressional leader who has waged an incompetent campaign. He hasn't been able to get past his war vote, which is seen more of an act of political expdiency than personal integrity. His attacks on Dean have largely been misrepresentations, and he's tried to switch campaign directions several times. His campaign has largely been reactive, and not leading. His last chance is to perform unexpectedly well in Iowa, but most people see this as desperate and think he'll be the first major candidate to drop out.
Sharpton has been an entertaining agitator, and his presence up until now has been defended, as representing a valuable voice in Democratic politics. There is growing concern, however, that he might pull a negative stunt that will end up dividing the party rather than uniting it.
Moseley-Braun is usually praised for her class and responsible demeanor, and then is written off immediately afterward. Her electoral strategy is so nonexistent that it is difficult to predict when she will actually drop out.
Kucinich's politics are probably most compatible with the politics of those who read dailykos. Most people have gut reactions against his candidacy though, and there's a general agreement that he's not a major candidate, even though he's generally respected. Kucinich does not have a definable electoral strategy either. Most support his running as a valuable way to represent the left perspective, and also to keep Nader at bay.
In general there is a sense of impatience for the Iowa and New Hampshire (and DC) to happen already, so the field will shrink and there will be new possibilities to analyze.
As for Bush, in general, when Bush is doing badly, all major candidates poll equally well against him. When Bush does well, such as after Saddam was captured, all candidates take a hit, but the Democratic hawks take less of a hit. Most people are worried that the election will be defined by what tricks Bush will be able to pull out of his hat - WMD, OBL, or economic data.