The End of the Road

Manchester, New Hampshire

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY did its job of winnowing the field of presidential candidates to two. In truth, it winnowed the Democratic field to one, John Kerry, with a second candidate, Howard Dean, barely hanging on. But three others--Wesley Clark, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman--insist they'll compete in at least the seven primaries on February 3. Somebody please tell them their candidacies are over.

If history prevails (and it often does), Kerry will be the Democratic nominee. Every candidate, Republican or Democrat, who has won both the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary has gone on to capture the nomination. Sure, Kerry is capable of screwing up so badly that he defies history, but it's not likely.

So the stage has been set for a Kerry versus President Bush race this fall. That match-up is reminiscent of the Bob Dole versus President Clinton election in 1996. Hold your applause. It would be a conventional presidential contest between two party regulars.

Kerry is Dole without the wit. Like Dole, he's an establishment figure, an old political horse with little pizzazz. He's not identified with any particular issue or cause. His ideology is basically liberal but flexible, just as Dole's was conservative but pragmatic. Kerry is acceptable across the center-left breadth of the Democratic party, a mirror image of Dole's standing among moderate and conservative Republicans.

Democratic voters here weren't ready to risk the 2004 nomination on a younger, less experienced but more exciting candidate like John Edwards or a firebrand like Dean. They figured a serious, sober candidate--Kerry--would have a better shot at defeating Bush. On this matter, the exit poll in New Hampshire was revealing. Most Democrats didn't vote strategically, but those who said the ability to oust Bush was the decisive factor in picking a candidate went with Kerry.

What about the also-rans in New Hampshire? Wes Clark's third-place finish was unimpressive. His TV ads were exercises in vanity, extolling him without giving much indication of what he'd do as president. The ads helped Clark little. He also had a disastrous debate followed by numerous gaffes on the stump. His campaign continues only because he has money to spend. But his prospects are bleak no matter how much he spends.

Winding up behind Clark might have been a calamity for John Edwards. He was expecting a late surge, but it didn't materialize. He was supposed to do well with the female vote, but he did better among men. He was thought to have a shot at second behind Kerry and a quite good chance of finishing third. Again, he fell short.

But Edwards charmed New Hampshire Democrats. Asked their overall opinion of the candidates, they ranked Edwards first with 73 percent favorable, ahead of Kerry's 71 percent and Dean's 59 percent. Edwards stands to gain from losing this year by leaving a positive impression on Democrats across the country. This no doubt terrifies Hillary Clinton, who will find Edwards in her way if she runs for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Finally, there's Lieberman, the candidate with the most class and integrity. After a strong performance in the televised debate last week, he declared that his campaign was experiencing a surge of "Joe-mentum." It didn't take him anywhere.

Though he finished fifth, Lieberman said he was part of "a three-way split decision for third place." And that was enough for Lieberman to claim his campaign had made significant progress in New Hampshire. It may have, but Lieberman's future is still most likely as a distinguished member of the U.S. Senate. That's not a bad fallback position, since the other losing candidates will soon be out of work altogether.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.