What I wrote for the Cattle Call
(for those of you who don't read Daily Kos)

Two weeks ago, I put Howard Dean alone at the top of the Cattle Call for the first time, because I thought, based on buzz and what kind of attention he was starting to get from the press, that he was on his way.

Nothing--I mean absolutely nothing--has changed to make me think differently.

In fact, I think Dean's star at this point is still rising: All last week the news was about Dean in some way (and kudos to Trippi and the rest of the Dean Team for keeping it that way). First it was his announcement, and then the hashing and re-hashing of "Meet the Press" and how Russert unfairly bullied him, then it was the MoveOn victory, then it was his fundraising prowess. And this week, no big gaffes!

You cannot say that anyone--even the candidates who will have raised more in Q2 than Dean--got the kind of press attention and breadth of support that Dean did. I'll bet you a nickel to a hole in a donut that the average per-donor total is far lower for Dean (an average of $127 per 59,000 donors; if each of those donors maxed out to $2000, that adds an addition $110 million to the campaign; take that, Whopper!) and the number of first-time donors to any campaign is higher. None of the other campaigns are sure enough of themselves even to post the "ticker" or running total the way Dean did, which I think is part of how the numbers got so high by the end. Nearly $1 million came in on June 30 because the campaign treated it like a public TV pledge drive--and, just like that pledge drive always makes its goal on the last day, Dean made two goals--an early one of $6.5 million and a later one of $7 million.

When a Democrat can cause this much excitement, it is good for him, of course, but also for the party. Don't be discouraged by the Whopper's numbers, but remember that every dollar given to every Democratic candidate is a dollar against the Republicans!

Second for me is still Dick Gephardt, as I feel he has the most in terms of traditional Democratic support. He's got the unions, a good chunk of midwesterners, and the House delegation is starting to line up behind him. This makes him appealing to many who have been active in the party for a long time. His (expected) $5 million in Q2 is respectable, but you've got to figure he doesn't have the breadth that Dean does in donor base.

Third this week is John Kerry, moving ahead of Joe Lieberman. John McCain said some nice things about him this week--I don't know why--plus he's clearly winning the cash-on-hand contest. His numbers are still strong in New Hampshire, but not nearly as strong as they need to be in Iowa. His money numbers this quarter will not be high (for him) but it doesn't matter, as he's got the biggest war chest of all nine candidates (after he rolled leftover senate campaign money in).

Kerry's weak third-place showing in the MoveOn vote, plus his late, half-hearted attempts to plug into Meetup show that he will not be a winner among the netroots crowd; the importance of that crowd, of course, is debatable, but, speaking as a member of the netroots vanguard, I think we're a key demographic. But what's really interesting about MoveOn and Kerry is that despite a third place finish, well behind Kucinich, Kerry comes in second in the "would you enthusiastically support this candidate?" question, a good 8 percent ahead of DK. Which is one reason why DK will not make the top tier--even people predisposed to like him aren't as motivated to work for him as for other candidates.

Fourth this time is Joe Lieberman, who, defying all of my expectations, is sputtering to a halt. He's missing senate votes right and left to raise money, and he's not even doing as well at that as you might think. A disappointing quarter two--with most everybody predicting a $4.5 million showing--means Joe needs to really re-think his being in this race.

I used to say that there were three viable candidates in this race: Gephardt, the liberal; Lieberman, the centrist; and Dean, the insurgent. Dean needs to spend a few more weeks as the focus of all things Democratic before he stops being the insurgent, but Lieberman seems willing to roll over and let Dean take the centrist slot (Kos keeps saying Dean will be a "liberal" candidate, with Kerry, but Dean's already moving away from the "liberal" designation, with help from Kucinich, without losing much of his initial support).

So, playing insurgent now may be my number five, John Edwards. But I don't see Edwards creating any buzz; he's getting no press--not even any for his excellent Georgetown speech--and he's getting further and further behind in national polls and in polls in states that matter. His Q2 numbers were lower than Q1 ($5 million vs. more than $7 million), which could signal a slow in momentum, suggesting he's not really there enough yet to know how to ride the wave that started in Q1. Of course, his spokeswoman says that the big Q1 and a slow Q2 was his plan all along . . .

Dennis Kucinich is now sixth on my list, thanks to a good MoveOn showing, mostly. DK will not end up playing the insurgent in this race, as his appeal will never be broad enough to make that label fit. He will, however, move some of the debate to the left, which is good for us. He also, as I mentioned earlier, provides some cover for Dean, who now does not have to bear all the responsibility of being overly leftist. Plus, DK will break seven figures in fundraising, which will make it easy for him to run for re-election to congress for the next eight cycles.

Bob Graham floats in next; he's not even making waves any more about WMDs and intelligence. You'd think that with all the attention the media is now starting to pay to the issue, Graham could make it play in his favor. Yet there is nothing palpable to his campaign this week, except modest ($2-3 million) fundraising.

Al Sharpton comes in eighth. What else do I need to say?

Then there's Carol Moseley-Braun, who seems to be way too passive. I mean, on the splash page to her website, you find this, and wonder about that "low expectations" meme:

New Poll! Democrat defeats Bush; Carol in the middle of the pack.

What might it have said if she'd finished first?

Not officially running are Wesley Clark and Joe Biden. Let me do Biden first. I think he's trying to pick up the slack Lieberman's leaving in the New-England-Senator-who-thinks-the-war-was-justified category. But you know it's bad when you Google "Joe Biden" and the third entry reads (and I am not making this up), "In 1987, for instance, Senator Joe Biden, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, was accused of plagiarizing passages in speeches and . . ." If he enters the race, he goes straight to number eight.

Clark, on the other hand, is an intriguing question to deal with. If he enters, he enters at number five, even though he has never held elected office and has not, as of this writing, even declared his party affiliation. But a whole lot of tongues went wagging last week when Bill Clinton said kind things about him (although they were as nice and as non-committal as what Clinton said about Howard Dean after the DLC attacked Dean in May).

I say it's too late for Clark to enter; if he does, he will be competing with Howard Dean for the uncommitted Democrats and moderate Republicans, and Dean has big mo' there right now. I don't think committed Deanistas will jump ship for Clark, so only those new supporters will be in play. I also don't see Clark drawing much from any of the other candidates, except maybe Kerry, whose military background may be the most appealing thing about him. Plus, anyone entering the race this late (even though by historical standards it's very early) will give too much the impression that Democrats are lost and need a savior. We aren't--and we don't want to give that perception, either.