Who's up for some Christmas late night election discussion?

I know I am!

Actually, I'm on late night guard in case my son wakes up. He may or may not be sick and is definitely teething, so he's hurting quite a bit.

Let's start with a look at the Democratic field.

Here, there are three names that merit any consideration: Hillary, Barack, and Edwards. Edwards is at an immediate disadvantage, since he must suffer the indignity of being identifiable only by his last name.

Hillary's advantages and disadvantages are almost universally known. Pluses: Strong name recognition, a competent and professional organization, a large lead in national polls. Minuses: a vitriolic hatred from nearly half the nation, significant past scandals, a cold demeanor. If she wins Iowa and New Hampshire, she will unquestionably win the nomination. If she fails to win those states, she'll still likely be the favorite, but the race will become much more interesting.

Obama's strength lies in his compelling stump speech, his unprecedented fundraising skills, and his ability to market himself as the candidate of 'change.' His formidable talents, however, have not translated into strong debate performances or a surge in national polls. He does have considerable support in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. To win the nomination, he's going to have to close strong in Iowa to convince Democratic partisans that he is (1) experienced enough to lead the country and (2) strong enough to fight off Republican attacks.

Edwards is an interesting case. Four years ago, he rode his boyish good looks, inoffensive speech, and southern charm to give John Kerry his only real opposition in the primaries. This time around, he's the unapologetic, fire-breathing populist liberal who hasn't found a rich person he can't disparage. He has many weaknesses as a candidate, foremost the contrast between his rhetoric and his lifestyle, but he appeals to the Angry Left. He has very little support after the early states, so to have any chance at winning the nomination, he's going to have to win Iowa convincingly and ride a wave of free media coverage into the other states. Anything short of a large Iowa victory will not be enough.

Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich are irrelevant. Having said that, I think Biden's been spectacular in the debates I've seen.

On the Republican side, there are six (Six!) candidates worth discussing.

Rudy Giuliani has long been the national frontrunner. For more than a year, he's led virtually every national poll of Republicans, based on his strong name recognition and great support as New York City's 9/11 mayor. The question a year ago is the same question he faces today: How will his liberal social policies affect his chances? As the first primaries become closer, it appears that the answer is "Considerably and negatively." Though Rudy has done an admirable job on the campaign trial playing up his national security and low-tax credentials, his denial of the pro-life segment of the party has begun to hurt him. To win the nomination, he simply has to do well enough to get to February 5th with enough credibility to carry states like Florida.

Before Giuliani was the frontrunner, most observers expected John McCain to be the party's 2008 nominee. However, over the past 18 months, McCain's campaign imploded and appeared on the verge of ruin. It's only been over the past few months that conservative voters have given him a second look and decided that they might like what they see. His weaknesses (a maverick reputation, a good relationship with the media, and his age) aren't going away, but McCain appears to be positioning himself as the second choice of many voters. To win, he'll need to replicate his 2000 success in New Hampshire and convince enough conservatives that he is the least of several evils.

Of the major contenders, only Mitt Romney has run a traditional Republican campaign. Romney has spent millions more than anyone in Iowa, campaigned aggressively in New Hampshire, and touted his conservative credentials. Those credentials, however, have come into question because of Romney's changed position on many issues. It's expected that candidates will position themselves effectively to win elections, but when a politician changes his position on abortion, stem-cell research, gun rights, immigration, and a host of other issues, it leaves voters wondering what the man really believes. For Romney to win, I believe he must win Iowa. Given the time and money he invested there, anything other than a victory will inevitably be portrayed as a failure.

Mike Huckabee has come from nowhere to be Romney's most credible challenger in Iowa. The former governor of Arkansas has used a strong emphasis on religion as well as a unique brand of working class populism to appeal to a large segment of primary voters who had been dissatisfied with the slate of candidates. Since his meteoric rise in the polls, Huckabee has faced increased scrutiny over his tenure as governor and inconsistencies within his positions. Like Romney, Huckabee probably needs to win Iowa to have a realistic shot at winning the nomination. He faces an uphill battle because he lacks Romney's fundraising revenues as well as Giuliani's and McCain's name recognition. Consequently, free media coverage is a key to his campaign.

Fred Thompson is the last of the major Republican candidate. A year ago, no one considered him as a possibility, but six months ago, he was viewed as a potential savior in an otherwise weak field. Like most political messiahs, Thompson has underwhelmed. (See also Clark, Wesley.) Thompson has shown little desire to do the kind of retail politicking necessary in Iowa and New Hampshire and has instead seemed content to rely on his fame to earn him the nomination. Thompson's best shot at winning the nomination is a muddled early race that leaves no clear frontrunner but several candidates bruised. At that point, Thompson would need to perform well in the southern primaries and emerge as a compromise choice among voters.

Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. Still, he deserves to be mentioned because he has really tapped into a mine of anger among a distinct core of supporters. He has translated this support into more than $12 million in donations in the fourth quarter. This is absolutely uncharted territory for a argely unknown Congressman from Texas. Depending on how Paul decides to use the money, he could go a long way to determining who wins the nomination-indeed he could help decide the presidency if he runs as an independent candidate.

I have to confirm with Big Jim, but I'm pretty sure our editorial endorsement will be coming out soon. Perhaps surprisingly, I think we're on the same page.