is undeniably the worst bit of political analysis I have read this year. Consider the following:
"That may be why no unchallenged front-runner has emerged for the party's presidential nomination."
Dean may not be unchallenged (actually, he is quite challenged imho), but he is clearly running away with the nomination.
"But Kucinich is a cut above the other "second-tier" contenders, someone with a realistic chance to break through, as his runner-up finish in last summer's MoveOn.org preference poll proved."
Kucinich is the darling of the far-left, but he has NO realistic chance to break through. He has consistently polled in the 1-3% range both nationally and in state polls. His standing in the MoveOn poll simply reflects how out of touch that organization is.
As for Dean,
"The former Vermont governor would draw well among independents - his real role model is John Anderson - but, if elected, would soon be warring with fellow Democrats over domestic policy."
This is just plain silly. Dean is not going to be strong among independents, and John Anderson was supported in his 1980 run mostly by radical leftists who were burned out on Jimmy Carter. I know because I was one of them (back before I became a Republican). Anderson got 15% in Massachusetts, managing thereby to hand the state to
Ronald Reagan. I believe that is the highest percentage Anderson got in any one state.
Hilariously, he concludes:
"In the meantime, do you suppose the new, improved Al Gore might reconsider?"
Not sure how Al has improved, but his endorsement of Dean would seem to take him out of the race.