My response to the 'Cattle Call' has grown into a diary-size statement, so I may as well post it as one.
I'm not about to rank candidates based on national poll numbers, as national numbers have nothing to do with how we choose a nominee. We still have a series of contests in a specific order, and not a national primary. This is more a prediction of how I expect the race to lay out when it happens, as of right now...
after the break::
I am ranking candidates based on my expected outcomes in the early contests, not on meaningless national poll numbers:
1- Edwards: still leading in Iowa, has the best Iowa organization ((where organization trumps media, unless you used your media to commit suicide as Dean and Gephardt did last time)) and support of a large number of the county chairs. If he wins there, the coverage should provide a significant boost to his national numbers and momentum. Kerry's 04 win there seemed to virtually end the competitiveness of that race, as he went on to win almost every other primary/caucus.... so one should not underestimate the importance of the Iowa results on the contests that follow. After an Iowa win, he needs to place well in New Hampshire and Nevada (at minimum, if not winning those), and win in South Carolina (where he won last time) prior to the bucketload of primaries shortly following.
2- Obama: He is tailor-made for the New Hampshire Primary which has a long history of giving a boost to fresh faces with charisma. I expect him to win there, if not suddenly overcome by Edwards momentum out of Iowa. I rather expect he'll place more focus on N.H. where he has more chance of pulling off a win than in Iowa. While still a retail-politics state, media does seem to play a more important role in N.H. than in Iowa, and the media seems to love Obama for the moment.
3- Hillary: Which of the first four contests can she win? I don't see it happening in Iowa, I don't see it in New Hampshire... Losses in those first two states, which I expect to happen, will really shove a great big fat torpedo into the 'Hillary inevitability' theory, and accentuate the perceptions of her weaknesses in a general election campaign. She'll probably have the money to contest every primary, but after being clobbered in the first two (or three, or four) contests, how does she escape starting to look like a "sure loser" even more than she does now? Currently, she among the three doesn't seem to be gaining any ground at all, among the activist base-- and to be slowly sliding, if anything.
I really don't expect her to be the nominee, in the end. When her bubble bursts, either Edwards, Obama or both will be the beneficiaries, and the real contest for the nomination may come down to an Edwards - Obama race.
4- Gore: While the others line up support in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere, he sits on the sidelines. I don't expect him to make this race. If he does... I think the biggest boost goes to Hillary, for the further splintering of the anti-Hillary vote.
5- Richardson: Dark horse waiting for lightning to strike somewhere. The weather looks pretty fair right now.
6- all the others.
The Nomination:
The potential for the first "brokered convention" in decades, where the nominee hasn't been determined in the primaries, seems very strong to me. We have three relatively strong candidates. One of them (Clinton) has the potential i.e. money to continue to contest every state even if she lost most of them, (and quite possibly would). The primary schedule has been frontloaded big-time, and these delegates will be chosen when in all likelihood there will STILL be a three-way race going (with delegate percentages like 40-30-20%?). Unless the opposition collapses very early, no candidate may be able to get a mathmatical majority of the delegates prior to the convention. The party's "super-delegates" (officeholders, etc) could prove to be critical, for the first time, to the outcome of the race.
I'll admit to my personal prejudices now. I do strongly support Edwards; not only has he been saying and doing all the right things lately (particularly dumping the FOX Nevada debate), but I believe he is the strongest candidate going into the general election.
Conversely, I believe Hillary is the kiss of death. Even some Democrats I know dislike her; she is "wrapped too tight" and likely to blow up in ways that would further demean her chaces to win a general election, IMHO.
Obama, I consider "iffy" in a general election. If he continues to catch on, develops a more substantial platform, and doesn't succumb to gaffs due to his inexperience in high-stakes races, he could win it-- but I don't see how his candidacy would help our party in areas where we are traditionally weak, i.e. the South(Or Hillary either, for that matter). I still believe Edwards is the guy, (and maybe the ONLY guy OR gal) who can bridge that gap, and bring enough former Democratic voters in the south home to deliver an electoral majority.
If Edwards somehow implodes before Michigan votes, I will vote for Obama.