Howard..... Howard!!!!

Here's what I don't get. Is there any reason more Democrats aren't voting for Clark other than the fact that he jumped in late? It seems to me that the Dean momentum snuck up on everyone, and when he appeared at the top of the early polls, nearly every Democrat seemed to jump on the "well, he's not Bush" bandwagon. Well Clark isn't Bush either, and he's certainly come out with a more error-free campaign (unless you count starting late as an error.) It really seems to me like people are holding onto Dean simply because he's a new name on the Democratic landscape, he's at the top of the polls, and he's got a chance to beat Bush.

So I guess my question has two parts... First, can anyone poke holes in my theory that people who might otherwise be tempted to vote for another candidate (be it Clark or anyone else with a prayer of being nominated) are simply too scared to switch to someone else because it would lessen the appearance of solaridarity amongst Democratic voters? Second, is there any precedent for a guy like Clark (a political novice entering the campaign late) to actually make headway and win the nomination? I really think there's some kind of dynamic in this "grassroots Dean momentum" that smells of a bunch of Democrats that aren't voting with their hearts, they're just too chicken-shit to consider switching to someone else who isn't at the top of the heap right now.