This entry isn't trying to be condescending in any way, but the post-Iowa responses have me curious. One contest in an unrepresentative state that has a quirky process by any definition and folks are writing obits, bailing out and sure they need to search for new candidates.
I'm 55 and I date the loss of my political virginity to 1960, when I was 12. I've followed every campaign since then, gotten involved in some and always voted after I reached legal age. Politics fascinates me so I never tune it out. My wife and I both agree that if money were no object, we would love living in DC just for the ability to eavesdrop on dinner table conversations.
But I can't help feeling that, regardless of age, dKos has an abundance of neophytes after reading the blog the last two days. There is a definite lack of perspective on all sides.
We have had exactly one caucus. The state is not representative of the electorate as a whole and the caucus rules are arcane at best. Iowa has yet to pick a winner in the Democratic primaries. Even in '76, the year that supposedly put Iowa on the map, Jimmy Carter finished second to Undecided.
Is Dean's campaign damaged? Certainly, and much was his own doing. But this is early in the game and he has shown resilience in the past.
Was Kerry's and Edwards' performance impressive? Certainly again. But Kerry has nowhere to go aftert NH until Super Tuesday. And Edwards needs money and has to fight Clark in the South with Dean possibly coming up on the outside.
What about the untested to date Clark? Can he withstand the rigors of a negative campaign? He will have to since Kerry has shown no scruples in this regard and Kerry's rival now in NH is Clark.
Basically, to paraphrase Yogi Berra at this juncture, "In politics you don't know nuthin'."
So here's the question. What is your political age, i.e. how long have you continuously followed and been involved in the political process?