StudioGlyphic

The Washington Post reports that Clark, Lieberman, and Edwards have decided not to try to win in Iowa and New Hampshire:

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) have staked their presidential candidacies on an unusual second-chance strategy, betting their futures against the record of history and the dynamics that have governed nomination contests for more than two decades.

The decision by the three Democrats to say they will look for their first victories on Feb. 3 -- two weeks after the Iowa caucuses and a week after the New Hampshire primary -- tests whether anyone can win the nomination without competing to win in Iowa and New Hampshire and also highlights the parallel battles underway in the Democratic race.

Okay, that's probably a really stupid move by all these guys.

Iowa and New Hampshire aren't as important anymore. Time was, winning in Iowa or New Hampshire gave you a big media boost, and you could spend weeks or even months raising funds and traveling to all the other states and building up your campaign. Next year, however, everything will be over in six weeks. Maybe three. So if you don't have the funds and numbers by the time Iowa and New Hampshire roll around, you just aren't likely to get them after an Iowa or New Hampshire win. This happened to McCain in 2000: he won in New Hampshire, but didn't have the time or war chest to fund an adequate campaign in South Carolina, where George Bush creamed him with attack ads and whisper campaigns.

Let me restate: if you don't have the funds by the time Iowa and New Hampshire roll around, you are already screwed. Oh, and if you're the front-runner and you win in Iowa or New Hampshire? You just confirm what everyone already believes.

So unless you're polling really strong in the February 3rd states, what would be the point of conceding defeat in Iowa and New Hampshire and looking forward to February 3?