Perhaps the Democrat Party is not as collectively stupid as they sometimes seem to act. I say this, of course, in light of the results of the Iowa presidential caucuses. I wouldn't presume to have known how to predict this, but a few things jump out of the results, which were

Kerry 38%
Edwards 32%
Dean 18%
Gephardt 11%

Most striking, labor was NOWHERE. Some wisdom might have foreseen that labor support was split between traditional unions for Gephardt and AFSCME for Dean, thus diluting their impact. But note that all votes, labor and otherwise, for Dean and Gephardt COMBINED were somewhat less than what the SECOND place finisher got. If the unions haven't got any throw weight in a Democrat primary, they're REALLY not going to have an impact in the general election against Bush.

Iowa Democrats obviously put a big premium on the idea of "electability." Lots of Democrats go around hatin' and bashin' Bush, but the voters were looking for someone nicer- someone perhaps actually electable. They seem to be thinking this through, rather than going with the candidate who articulates their anger. Smart thinking. Apparently, that whipping in the midterms has focused their attention.

Despite how well Dean may tap their anger feelings, Democrats apparently looked at Dean and tried to imagine him actually competing against Dubya. Obviously that's not going to fly. Who else we got?

They've tried not to emphasize it, but Republicans fear Edwards in the fall worse than any of the other Democrats. The intuition of this seems to have been the basis of his surprisingly strong Iowa showing. After all, which of these Democrats might conceivably peel off some of those Southern states?

Which all may or may not mean anything in New Hampshire a week from now. One thing though- Dean pretty much HAS to have New Hampshire now to remain viable. Kerry keeps going no matter how New Hampshire comes out, and Edwards isn't expected to do well in New Hampshire. He will be heading into the South- which should be his natural constituency.

The obvious critical thing issue that neither Iowa nor New Hampshire addresses: the black vote. A big portion of Democrat voters are black. Starting in South Carolina, which of the three likely Democrats will get black votes? I may be proved wrong, but I have trouble seeing Southern black voters going for Dean or Kerry. By default, Edwards seems like the man.