Again, I mean no disrespect at all to the glorious old warhorses of the Democratic Party. But, Gephardt, Dodd, and Biden have all been grabbing at the brass ring for decades. All whispered about as "contendas" in their youth, all failing to get any traction as Presidential cycles have come and gone.

Maybe in Iowa, but nationally Gephardt was a big yawn in 2004.

Dodd's been around since he and his buddy Ted were infamous sewing their wild oats around the Georgetown bar scene as young lawmakers. If the American people were interested in electing Chris Dodd President, they've had ample opportunity to do so before now.

These are all great career Senators looking for one last shot of glory on the campaign trail. More power to the. But, they aren't going to impact the race with a field this strong.

Desmoinesdem,

I don't mean to say that the Firefighters were Kerry's only volunteers, or that Kerry did not have field staff.  But the Firefighters played an important part in the organization that developed over Summer and Fall 2003 that led Kerry to his caucus victory.  IAFF was Kerry's big labor endorsement, in a field where Dean's labor support ended up failing on him.

But the signs at the JJ dinner, which were also at every Kerry appearance I went to that fall, were as useful for optics as the boots on the ground were for organization.  And during the 2004 election cycle, when terrorism and 9/11 were on everyone's minds, everyone had an enormous amount of respect for firefighters.  I don't think that much of that respect has faded since then.  There may be only one firefighter in the average precinct in Iowa, if that, but you've got to believe that everyone else in the precinct house will listen to what (s)he has to say before making up their minds.

Well, based on polling, Dodd doesn't really have any supporters, so it would be tough to guage where they might go. However, Dodd, Biden, and Clinton all seem to appeal to the same base: traditional mainstream Democratic Party constituencies. None are youth oriented movement candidates like Obama. None are really fringe lefty candidates like Kucinich or Edwards (Ver. 2.0).

My sense is that Dodd, Biden, and Clinton have been running a tag-team operation since the beginning of the race. Dodd and Biden were positioned to go for the traditional mainstream base if Clinton's campaign faltered early. Obama's trying the Howard Dean thing. Edwards, somewhat improbably, has ended up being a more credible Dennis Kucinich -- probably out of necessity more than anything else.

What a limited understanding you have.

Maybe you are fixated on the word "anti-".

By "anti-" we mean, NOT SUPPORTING.

If she has 40% in a poll, that's still 60% "NOT SUPPORTING" her.

If she has 30%, that's still 70% not supporting her.  It doesn't matter what her favorability rating is among Democrats.

The general election has a much larger group of "anti-Hillary" voters.

Obviously the best path for him would be to win Iowa.

An alternative path would be for him to come in second to Edwards in Iowa, with Hillary a distant third. For this to work, Obama might have to narrow the gap in NH before Iowa.

I think that Obama's post-partisan rhetoric is not going to carry him to victory in Iowa. I do not count him out, but I don't think that's what a plurality of Iowa Democrats are looking for in a candidate.

Hillary is strong across the board, with men and women, moderates and even some strength among liberals.  There is little acrimony towards her among mainstream Democrats.  If someone were to beat her, it would be in spite of her favorables, not due to a lack of them.

Previous comment to OE.