why is Edwards not counted out when Dean is?

i don't get it. in the most recent primaries, Dean and Edwards did about equally well regionally, and Dean has both more money and delegates. they're also about equal in popularity nationally.

so why does Edwards get talked about as if he has a shot to win, when Dean doesn't?

it seems pretty simple. Edwards won South Carolina. while we here on Kos should know better, that simple single victory in the birth state of the candidate makes Edwards somehow a more "viable" candidate than Dean. it's pretty much BS, to me. While Edwards does have some advantages over Dean (won a state, beat Kerry in 2 states) it's a stretch to say that one is viable whereas the other isn't.

you can make a case for the race being over. and you can make a case for Dean and Edwards to both have a shot at the nomination, albeit slim. but you can't rationally say that Kerry and Edwards are the only ones who have any shot at this point.