For the life of me, I can’t see how any of these guys wins the nomination, but I suppose one of them has to. None has anything even approaching a clear shot at it. At the moment, Huckabee’s all the buzz, and may very well win Iowa. But, as you note, money woes will start to kick in. Also, New Hampshire is its own thing, and his Iowa popularity, coupled with a grating Southern evangelicalism, may work against him there. Finally, increased scrutiny of Huckabee may dull some of his sheen. Both parties have been known to nominate little-known, amiable Southern governors in the past, but I really, really, really don’t see it happening this time.

As for Romney, if he can’t buy Iowa, then where will he pull ahead? He’s expected to do well in neighboring tax-conscious New Hampshire, and of course, Michigan, I suppose. But I suspect that if he leaves New Hampshire with anything less than clear frontrunner status, then he will be perceived as fatally wounded.
[Daniel–when you refer to having to choose between a fraud and a huckster, were you referring to Romney as the fraud, or the huckster? I can make an excellent case either way.]

Giuliani’s reliance on Huckabee to help him beat up on Romney in the early primaries, which will allow him to surge ahead beginning with Florida, is a plan I wouldn’t want to bet on. And in a field of fatally flawed candidates (Paul excepted), surely Giuliani has to be the most flawed of all–almost Dickensian in magnitude.

So, who does this leave us? I don’t have a clue. I wish it were Ron Paul. When the histories of the election are written, he will be cast as the conscious of the party. I suppose one could even make a case for McCain picking up the scaps after Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee have destroyed one another. I do know this–no party in my memory deserves to lose an election so badly as does the GOP in 2008. And loose it badly they will.