I am not sure who the "best candidate to beat Bush" is - the eccentric Michael Moore argued Clark; the wacky Ted Rall argues Dean; you seem to be arguing Edwards....

The problem that most voters have with Edwards is not where he stands on the issues. The problem is that he has served only a short period of time in government. He can be attacked on "inexperience", and some of those attacks will stick.

It was my impression, talking to people on Caucus day here in Michigan, that Clark and Edwards were pulling from the same pool of voters. I was left with the impression that if Clark dropped out, many of his supporters will switch to Edwards (and, to a lesser extent, that many Edwards supporters would switch to Clark). If I am right, Edwards will likely start drawing enough voters to accumulate additional delegates, and will have the opportunity to reinvent himself as the alternative candidate or as the best choice for Vice President.

In no small part, events in Iraq and the performance of the economy will dictate the result of this election. If both seem to be going swimmingly, as the Bush Administration has long hoped, it is unlikely that any Dem could beat Bush. If the economy is sputtering or takes a turn for the worse, if there is no recovery in the employment market, if the situation in Iraq doesn't improve... there will be issues which are likely to lead the "political center" to seek alternatives to the incumbent.

That's not an argument for "hoping for the worst on the economy and Iraq" - I hope that all goes well and the Dems can still take back with White House. But it'll be harder.