Really, it is that simple. The media looks to how much money candidates have amassed as the primary measure of "electability." Then they report to the masses which candidates are "serious" and "electable" on that basis. Of course, especially early on, most of the campaign contributions come from corporate donors or shell organizations for corporate donors, so what they are really announcing is which candidates seem to have done the best job of selling out to the entities that are also bankrolling the lobbyists that undermine the will of the people in every election. Nonetheless, most of the citizenry seems to lap up the misinformation as truth, suspend their own judgment about which candidates are most deserving of their votes, and limit their choices to match the prescriptions of their corporate overlords.

Edwards is no stranger to gobs of corporate cash, himself. He is an experienced political insider who has done a good job of selling out when he wanted the bucks and when he wanted to get on someone else's (Kerry) ticket. He was a co-sponsor of legislation authorizing the illegal, preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq as well as the PATRIOT ACT. However, he has admitted the error of his ways and reversed course in those areas while getting behind some truly progressive (or at least anti-fascist) policies as a presidential candidate, which sets apart from, Clinton and Obama who are much more reluctant to go to the lengths Edwards has in siding with the poor and disadvantage groups that encompass ever more of America, to say nothing of having far more experience than Clinton or Obama as a national candidate and elected official, no matter what sort of propaganda the Clinton camp pumps out about that.

It is no surprise, then, that Edwards should show up as a much stronger candidate that Clinton or Obama when he is presented as the potential opposition to the anti-populist, anti-progress candidates being fronted by the GOP. It is also no surprise that he does better than Kucinich, who does not even take himself seriously enough to get an organization on the ground and open a single campaign office in early primary states, such as Iowa. For all the right things Kucinich says, he does not do nearly as many obvious and necessary things that mark a serious leader and contender for the presidency as does Edwards, who is unmistakably less progressive and defiant than the rhetoric coming out of Kucinich's mouth.

If Edwards does not get the Democratic nomination, he could do very well for himself and his country to leave the Democratic Party and run as Third Party--or even independent--party. That one move just might save the immediate future of the country, and should do much to reverse the nearly complete merger of the Republican-lite Democratic Party with the genuine article the Democrats are working so hard and carefully to serve and protect from their perch as the new majority in both houses of Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Any progressive with functioning brain cells should see reality of Bill & Hillary...an apolitical, opportunist power-couple that will co-opt and triangulate each and every position for their empowerment. A favorite trick of theirs is to exploit/provoke Right Wing attacks to trick progressives into supporting them. As both a union supporter/activist and as gay man, I've been burned too many times by the Clinton's...who brought the union movement the Chernobyl of NAFTA....Bill gave us Don't Ask/Don't Tell, DOMA and in 2004 was going around urging Democrats to support gay marriage bans....

If Bill were man of principled progressive convictions, I'd say "yes," let's ignore his many faults and support his wife....He is no principled progressive....and as hard as it is for some on the Left to admit, he is a serial offender when it comes to sexually exploiting female subordinates. I do not want Bill Clinton and his ticking time bomb libido back in the White House. His weaknesses are too much of a liability for progressives....Besides...we need to move away from the Bush/Clinton monopoly on the presidency before this nation devolves into a monarchy.

I see signs of political sloppiness in Obama that are reminiscent of John Kerry....Like Obama claiming that his living in Europe as a child gave him the foreign policy credentials to be president. I'm sorry, but this nation hasn't progressed enough to elect a black president...The only black person who could win the presidency is the master white power structure sycophant known as Colin Powell...but he has been burned, used and abused by the Bush's and he's too bitter to get involved presidential politics.

John Edward's isn't perfect...but he's the most electable progressive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A vote for Clinton (or Obama) is a vote for business-as-usual (no pun intended).

Both are beholden to corporate money, therefore both will bow to the will of those who provided the means to put them into office -- and it won't be the people.

Please don't be swayed by a corporate media that wants you to believe it'll be one-or-the-other on the democratic ticket. Research and determine which candidate is true to democratic ideals, and isn't beholden to corporate interests. Otherwise, there will be no structural changes; only window-dressing.

I view John Edwards as a decent and honorable man. His observations concerning the problems facing most American citizens resonates loudly with me. In my view, he, along with Dennis Kucinich, form the only base of sincerity and hopefulness (so far) in this upcoming presidential election.

Both gentlemen understand the plight of the typical American, and either would do their best to fight the insidious degradation of our democratic ideals, and communities, from the "rape-and-plunder" by the military-security-industrial mechanism that strangles our liberties, and jeopardizes the real security of this country.

We can no longer afford to have leaders who are influenced by, and indebted to, corporate money and agendas. The people must, again, enjoy that privilege -- not the corporate elite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After eight years of George W. Bush and Republican rule, make no mistake: we need a Democratic victory in 2008. This year cannot be the year of "Anybody But Bush". We have a very good field of candidates, but we cannot be satisfied with simply surviving the primaries. We need to be sure that we have the best candidate that will not only satisfy Democratic primary voters, but someone who will appeal to the vast majority of voters across the country without sacrificing his/her principles AND someone who will frame the debate, not be framed.

For my money, that is John Edwards. It is important to note, as this article does, that Edwards does the best of any of the Democratic candidates when it comes to matching up with anyone the Republicans may nominate. That is important because it not only shows us his strength in a general election scenario but it also means that Edwards will be a boost, not a drag, to candidates down the ticket in 2008. Here in Indiana, we will have many important elections in 2008 but two of the most important will be my local Congressional race and the Gubernatorial race. Those races will be tough enough to win without a divisive target at the top of the ticket. As a State Representative who has endorsed Edwards told me, "Edwards is the only one who will not kill us [in Indiana] in 2008." How true.

John Edwards will work for votes in every state, not just the "swing" states. He will fight for every vote and will not stand for any election shenanigans. Edwards wanted to fight on in Ohio in 2004. That is the kind of spirit we need in a leader and the kind of spirit I see in Iowa. I am not counting this guy out until the bitter end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joshua doesn't mention the taboo words "white male", which could suffice to explain the difference between those opinion polls that focus on Democrats and those that mirror the general population. Just saying. (Republicans also suffer from discrimination, by the way: bald men are statistically speaking never elected, Mormons are suspect... which would leave Huckabee who is as of now too unknown for polls to mean anything.)

If I were American I'd vote for Edwards despite his white male status, since he seems to be the only one among the frontrunners to have recognized that centrism is not the answer to Bush extremism, and that the disastrous legacy of the present administration can only be undone with a hard turn to the left. But I could live with another candidate winning the nomination as long as the Democrats win the White House and both houses of Congress. If a Republican wins it's the end of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards might very well be the most electable. Being from the South, he could carry most of that region, and he is progressive enough to probably capture California and New York. He does not seem to have the negatives of Hillary, and seems to be much better seasoned then Obama. The Dems would be smart to run him, as he might very well have a chance. I think he would easily win against Giuliani, the latter being perceived as a hatchet man and just a New Yorker. We shall see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has everyone forgotten the 2000 election already? Or the immense "irregularities" in the 2004 election?

The electoral system cannot be taken at face value. Whatever all this Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards hoopla is about, it's not about who's going to run the country; that has nothing to do with elections.

Look to our own oligarchs and princelings if you want some idea of what's going on in the circles of power. Elected representatives are their lackeys at best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One concept I've never heard the liberals (socialists, progressives, leftists, whatEVER) address was why Kerry was SO universally disliked by the white dumb-ass fascist loving peasants. The very people Kerry – and his party - were trying so desperately to help (and pretend to be himself).

Personally, I’ve always thought Edwards would be judged like Kerry. The typical dumb-ass peasant might be dumber-that-dirt (obviously), but these people KNOW a con-artist when they see one. This is yet another area the fascists have the advantage on the socialists. The Republicans never tell the dumb-ass peasants they’ll get help (other than getting even with “those people”, but THAT’S punishment to others – not help). Bush was always viewed as “one of the boys”, in much the same way that a prince is held in high esteem by his own peasants. Modern Socialist parties, like the Democratic Party, will always be at a disadvantage when one of its rich politicians “come `round” telling the peasants “we’re here to help YOU”. The peasants know this is BS and vote accordingly.

Fascism has natural advantages over Socialism, as its based on the natural fear and stupidity of people – which is inexhaustible. Socialism’s only advantage is intellect; which makes it a non-starter in THIS country!

Edwards is another rich socialist, pretending to be “one of the peasants”, and during an election the fascists would be reminding the peasants of this constantly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go to your candidates web site. Look at the platform (issues) and pick the one you like the best. BTW all of them say energy independence and that is a LONG way off. But that would be for another post.

They all want to be re-elected, and they will push their platform the first 4 years at least. They will not get all of it, but they will shift things their way and that is something.

Plus the president sets the party platform.

In my case Edwards has the platform I like best.

So no only will I vote for him when I can, I also made a campaign contribution ( I call this voting too) I am not rich, but I do what I can.

I am not likely to vote for Hillary, but if the other candidate is bad enough I will.

YMMV

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Were you one of those people who said that Ralph Nader should withdraw his candidacy for the good of the Democratic Party? Well, here's the rub. Hillary Clinton is endangering the Democrats' future, and the future of the country. Let her step down. Put Edwards in the driver's seat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I take issue with the author's comment that Kucinich's seriousness can be measured by the number of offices he establishes in early states. This is quite an over-simplification.
The man doesn't take a dime from Corporate America and thus does not have a war chest like his Dem competition.
Personally, I would rather have a candidate that is beholden to the PEOPLE, and ONLY the people, of this nation.
John Edwards is not the worst choice on face value - not by far, but if you think he's the best, you're not thinking hard enough.
As soon as I familiarized myself with his healthcare plan, he lost my vote for good. The Kucinich/Conyers plan for TRUE universal healthcare (Edwards' so sweetly still includes his insurance company friends) is what Americans DESERVE and DEMAND. No one gets turned down, no one gets bogged down with bills, and it costs less - from the cradle to the grave.
Dennis Kucinich has my vote - even if I have to write him in.
If you can't vote your values, what CAN you vote for? This is the time to make a REAL change, "electablity" be damned. WE decide who's electable. If we get out and vote with our hearts instead of staring at graphs constructed by the media (interesting that Kucinich isn't on there...), we could become a strong nation of healthy people who were again respected by the global community.
Kucinch will REPEAL the patriot acts,start GREEN WORK PROJECTS, get us out of NAFTA/WTO and so much more.
KUCINICH IN 2008!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My gut tells me that Hillary would be a bad choice. Not because I think that she could not do the job better than any of the GOP candidates (was there ever such a nightmarish collection) but because of that dreaded "electability". A candidate that millions believe literally to be the actual Anti-Christ (a step up from merely being married to him) is burned (not to speak of those voters that have told reporters that they would sooner elect bin Laden than Hillary).
Although it would probably cost some votes in the South, I'd propose a ticket Obama-Edwards (or the other way around). Edwards running as independent would under the "winner-takes-all" principle guarantee the GOPsters to win. If that were the case, a preemptive nuclear strike on Washington would begin to look appealing ;-).
Given what some of the GOPsters say and promise, they would face the criminal courts in several democratic countries (and the Huckster's promise to forcefully deport 12 million people in his first 120 days in office is one of the more harmless things).
Something else that should not be forgotten: The GOP must suffer more extreme losses in congress (especially the senate where Lieberman still holds his ex-party hostage) or it will not matter that a Dem sits in the WH.
Even a spineless bunch like the current Dems could prevent a lot of evil, if they got filibuster-proof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the best chance the Democrats have had since 1932 to run the boards. I don't just mean president; I mean BIG majorities in both houses of Congress -- maybe even 60 senators. The Republicans have a president with historically low ratings, are angling for a third consecutive presidential term (which is hard to do even in good times), are running in really bad times, and may well run a preacher who thinks the world is 6,000 years old.

So how do the Dems blow it? Run Clinton or Obama. Clinton's high negatives are a gift they should not give to the GOP (hell, SHE'S a gift to the GOP), and Obama will be labeled "unready." I personally think he will be president in two or three more election cycles, however.

As for this one, let's not give it away! Especially if the Republicans are foolish enough to run Huckabee, but no matter who they run, Edwards could make 2008 the cakewalk the Democrats should have had a long time ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look, Clinton has more baggage than an airport carousel. She is a conservative Democrat who carpetbagged her way to New York Senator on her husbands coattails. She wants a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning! Talk about opportunistic!

Oh, if she gets the nomination (and she still stands an excellent chance) she will triangulate with the best of her husbands execrable reputation. She will however, lose the Democratic majorities in both House and Senate--just like her husband did--simply because she is a corporate hack who doesn´t support the progressive "wing" of her Party.

Obama is charismatic but another conservative, corporate Dem whose mentor was Joe Lieberman (who supports McCain). So who are we left with...?

Well, Edwards talks the talk and is as close a "progressive" Dem who is "electable" as we are going to get. Is he the best? No. Kucinich is by far. But Kucinich will get nowhere and will fold like a sheet of tracing paper some convention time.

But progressives in the Dem party and out can rally around Edwards and push him, regularly, repeatedly and he just might be responsive. With all the rhetoric he is using he can be held to the fire and push a better agenda than any or the more corporatist Dems would. Plus, as the article points out, he beats ALL Republicans by good margins and wider ones than either Clinton or Obama. Is he perfect? No. But since we don´t vote for perfect, we should go with what´s good and Edwards is right on.

I´m a Green. I don´t vote for Dems. But on a national scale I think Edwards is the way to go. And on local scales, we need Greens and other third party people in order to open up the system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that people do, especially when there is something important at stake. The American Revolution was a plot for a good purpose.

I do think that it's a common mistake to attribute destructive plots to greed. It may be that they are based upon a strong instinct for survival, a fear that others want to destroy you, so get your retaliation in first. After all, in the US the consequences of failure are great. Just think of those people in Katrina-lashed New Orleans.

Don't you think that the corporations (such as insurance companies and Big Pharma) which hire risk management consultants (used to be called "shysters") have evolved sophisticated strategies to manipulate public opinion? Including polls, of course. He who controls the question, can to a large degree control the answer.

It might have become second nature to put questions a certain way, but that is probably due to people having conspired (and been rewarded rather than punished for it).

Nevertheless, Josh, thanks for all you are doing to point out the fact it's Edwards who can actually beat any Republican candidate--the graphics are great!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poll numbers are just numbers unless one tries to understand the voters.

The author of this piece has not shown any insight about that.

The decisive segment of the electorate are married people with children. They remain the largest adult demographic and because they have consistently high voter participation rates, remain the majority in the electorate.

They are mainly concerned with affordable housing, steady and remunerative employment, quality education, affordable health care, transportation and crime.

Because the locality affects the interplay of the various factors which these voters evaluate, they tend to make their decision based less on their response to candidates' positions as on the sense that the candidate understands suburban life and responds to issues in a manner consistent with the voters' interest. For convenience, I will term this type of voter a relational voter.

People who read publications such as AlterNet tend to be much more issues oriented and respond to candidates' positions. For convenience, I will term this type of voter an issues voter.

As with all stereotypes, there is no particular individual who fits the category, but for purposes of discussion, let's pretend that there are only these two well defined types of voters.

It seems to be difficult for the issues' oriented voter to comprehend the viewpoint of the relational voter and vice versa.

The GOP since Reagan has been successful in packaging their candidates and their message in ways that strongly appeal to the relational voter.

It is not so much that the relational voter would "have a beer" with a GOP candidate, as that the GOP markets its candidates as someone a relational voter would meet at a civic or recreational event and bond with.

The relational voter then has the sense, that the GOP candidate will "make the right decision."

Edwards seems to understand this. His telling of his life story in inspirational terms and his use of anecdotes like when his father explained the rules of fighting to little Johnny create the sort of relational bond that the GOP has been successful in developing.

If issues voters are looking for a victory in the November election- and their will to power is always suspect- they would well to look for the candidate who church-going mortgage paying voters will find appealing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quick- who would you vote for against Huckabee? A man-eater with a freight train load of stinking baggage and a consort who is in a class by himself for trouble.. oh no, I forgot Benazir Bhutto's hubby, sorry. Or, a nice-seeming former Senator with a nice wife who has her own courageous Story to tell, plus cute kiddies? Oh, and on the issues: who calls a spade a spade on the health care mess? This is one time in history when we NEED a trial lawyer in the White House, just as it was handy to have a railroad lawyer in the WH during the Civil War.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Southern vote is one thing I think is quite important in terms of the electability of a Democratic candidate. Although the South has come a long way since the final days of Jim Crow I'm not certain the region is quite ready to elect an African-descent American or a woman (whatever her ethnicity). And, as far as I recall no Democratic candidate has ever won the Presidency WITHOUT taking the South. On that count, Edwards would be the only Democrat to fit the bill, unless there has been a major change in attitudes. Maybe an Edwards/Obama or Edwards/Clinton ticket could pull off a win (assuming they could actually work together). A Clinton/Obama ticket would seem suicidal (assuming they don't liquidate each other before the election)...But, then again I guess the absurdity of the combination could be full of surprises :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look, Clinton has more baggage than an airport carousel. She is a conservative Democrat who carpetbagged her way to New York Senator on her husbands coattails.

Hilary Clinton is a conservative Democrat?

Does this mean that the Democratic rank and file has decided that Progressivm is too pure and perfect to govern in a democracy?

Conservatives are now at parity with progressives, that is why Bush's attempt at conservative only government has failed.

Senator Clinton's philosophy articulated in her book, is built on compassionate communalism.

Clinton is a feminist and a progressive, and understands that effective governance must be inclusive.

The carpet bagging accusation is just stupid. What sort of a team would the Yankees be if they only took players from the State of New York?

Clinton has won two elections on her own in NYS unforgiving political environment.

She won every demographic and a quarter of NYS Republicans- a hardy and opinionated lot.

Clinton has a distinguishe legislative record based on numerous and wide-ranging bipartisan sponsorship of key bills.

These are Hilary's accomplishments- made without Bill's assistance.

Hilary Clinton has the track record of political and legislative accomplishment, the savvy and of all, the steely toughness needed to be an effective President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He actually could win a fair election.

If the choice is between Clinton and McCain, who cares if the election is fraudulent or not?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Joshua, it's not a year to vote for anybody who comes "closest to my views." Aside from fragmented perceptions and spin, there is little the seperates the Dem candidates. Your thinking promotes the disloyalty among Dems that has been their downfall. Edward's advantage is that he's male and white if "electability" is the issue. A country that elects a Bush twice is hard to trust.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been an Edwards supporter since he indicated his interest in running again, and nothing has been said in the last 2 years to change my mind. Can't speak for everybody, but as one of those "Democratic party activists" in Iowa I DO NOT LIKE being told by the MSM or the political powers that be what I think or how I'm going to vote before I've opened my mouth or stepped into the caucus room (sounds just a bit too much like my ex wife for comfort!)

One of the things I've been telling people is that Edwards is probably the best, most-electable choice we could make for the general, and, believe me, we need to win BIG in '08 if anything is going to change for the better! The pundits ignore or trash Edwards because he is the guy who actually wants to affect that change; unfortunately, too many people have unwittingly bought into their line of BS.

All I can say is; watch the caucus results on Jan 3; you will be VERY surprised (and so will all those idiot pundits!)

Happy holidays!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake up! The elitist upper class have been in control of this country for decades. The middle class has been losing ground for decades. The middle class is under attack and it is time for it to save itself or die a slow death. More and more members of the middle class are sinking into the ranks of the poor. Millions are losing their homes.
Real incomes are shrinking, ability to send kids to college is collapsing(of course, who wants an educated electorate), health care has become unaffordable, wars suck away our financial resources, inflation makes life miserable (eggs @ $6.39 a doz, gas @ $3.50 a gal and going up, fuel oil--Oh well you know).
And only one candidate really speaks to our pain--Edwards. But those of the upper class, who control the media, ignore him. You know why!
The power of the middle class will not be denied, if not now--WHEN!
It is time to save America.
It is time to fight back!!
We of the middle class are the majority, and we can take back our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course the conventional wisdom says Hillary and Obama are the most viable candidates. That "conventional wisdom" comes from pundits that are, for the most part, shills for conservatives/Republicans, and they'd like nothing better than to run their candidate against either of two front-running (say: "financed") Democrats, who are all but unelectable while we are on a "war" footing: a woman with enormous baggage (as unfair as that might be), and a black man with too little experience (as unfair as THAT might be; after all, how much experience did Georgie have, let alone brains [and sobriety]?)

The fact is, we don't hear as much from Edwards as from Hillary and Obama in the mainstream media because Edwards – handsome, smart, progresssive and tenacious as hell – is the candidate who scares the crap out of the other side, and thus is being marginalized by their bought-and-paid-for media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How could someone be considered electable who conceded Ohio in 2004 in the face of blatant vote tampering, and before the official counts were even complete? It showed that he did not respect the voters, who deserved to have full recounts to explain the many disparities, and who never received a recount because he and others pulled the plug on it. It also showed that apparently there was something that he thought was more important than running our country well, the lives of a million Iraqis, the lives of thousands of US soldiers, or global warming. It's not clear if that "something" was the people's impatience to know a result in a day that doesn't take effect for 2 months, the facade of election results reflecting the will of the people, or just being a good stooge to the robber barons. His choice at that critical time in 2004 shows his judgment didn't improve after his voting in favor of war against Iraq, and it's not likely to improve in 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Between the neo con adgenda, the religious right, and rigged voting machines plus the fact that the majority of the American population has the intelligence equal to that of a Springer audience. It is a circus out there and we are in serious trouble... There is no way these people will vote for a woman or a black man at this point in time. All the republican candidates are clowns. Edwards is the only one worth voting for and the populace is just too stupid to see it. Get ready for v for vendetta time in a few years!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, I realize that we can only find out which candidate has the longest coattails from the primaries. Americans are too dense to sort out local issues, so it's up to the presidential candidate to drag in other winners.

It's called "charisma." But if I feel paying attention as a burden, I can appreciate the toll it must be taking on the candidates. Politics remains trial by fire. I can't wait until it's over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/14/5832/

The above article is by Paul Krugman on why the sub-prime mess isn't going away. The economy determines who gets elected President. It ain't going to be a Republican now or in the near future. None of them are electable.

Regarding the South, the Republicans of the early 20th century did fine without their vote. Today's Democrats can ignore them as well as long as the former "Red States" wake up and realize what's happened to them. (Amazing how Depressions do that!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As you said Josh-

"And the Clintons, despite carrying some heavy baggage, have won four high-stakes elections in a row(my bolding). It's hard to deny that there's some appeal in that after the tepid campaigns of Kerry in '04 and Gore before him"

I believe Hillary may be more populist than she is letting on? But she needs to get elected

My test is that, after ending the war, Hillary fights like hell for election reform.

My tickets-

Clinton/Richardson 2008

Edwards/Obama-2016

Rick Lippin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do a random poll yourself. Ask voters who they would vote for if the elction was today. Most will say Edwards or Ron Paul. (PS: Only ask people that have been following candidates positions!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary and Obama and most of the other Candidates in the "possible" to get 1% of the vote in the Iowa Caucuses all have the ability to call upon their family built connections.

They need only "dial-in" their policy after it has been formed in some hedge fund run by a family friend or Daddy's co-worker at the hedge fund.

John Edwards can call home but I think he will just get an honest opinion from a father that worked in a cotton mill and raised a son who learned to work and think for himself to become successful.

John Edwards worked his way to and through a University Education, Law School and developed a Law Practice that, yes, made him rich, but also set precedent for product safety, integrity of service providers (hospitals, denial of worker's compensation, denial of insurance [i.e. a la Katrina, etc.). Without lawyers that take on contingency cases, where would people who cannot even believe in the possibility of justice get a chance at legal redress and thus justice?

We have no idea what John Edward's earned on his contingency cases, was it volume or percentage? Then, take into consideration the cost of running a law office with journals costing upwards of $800/year for one subscription. Think of all the paralegals, typists and associates it would take to run a legal firm and then understand that all of this is based on a partial caseload of contingency cases.

No, it isn't vile or evil, it is how I sought justice from the city in which I live. I broke a foot on a unseen sidewalk obstacle, I spent almost 1 year with 3 surgeries and a bone graft with pins to put me back together so I could walk.

I live on a very sparse income. If I hadn't been able to have a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis, I wouldn't have been able to exist, Worker's Compensation took 2 months to start and ended after 5 months.

It also really was about bringing the city to task, by ONE MORE INJURED CITIZEN, for their lackadaisical, if existent, maintenance plan.

Both were accomplished.

I spent a year on my couch due to the injury and another 4 months learning how to walk again. Do you not think that "the poor" should have access to lawyers? I wouldn't have cared if I got 15%, I wanted no one else to have to sit on a couch while watching the bills pile-up while waiting for the next round of X-rays and surgeries.

I'd like a President who figured out how to make it on his own, based upon what he learned from his Dad who worked at a Cotton Mill; I don't want another kid who came from wealth to tell me how "they made it and know how to work and make a difference with change. What change? From one fashion designer to another? From one board of directors to another?

To tell me you have 35 years of experience and realize that MORE than half of that, of which you are counting, is riding on the coat-tails of your ELECTED spouse, is some GRANDIOSITY of thought and delusion.

I'll listen most to the candidates that came up from the people who made the food for the church
or VFW supper, not those that gave the biggest donation and never showed up at the place except when being acknowledge for their "generosity;" they need to learn agape.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama? who has no experience, who admits to cocaine and over indulgence of liquor and on the verge of heroine? Oh its ok because he admitted this/now why do you think he admitted it? so here we are...someone that admits to drug usage, with no experience, who's name is Barrak Hussein Obama, nice guy, nice guy, almost to nice, but has only been around 2years in the senate with no real accomplishments to qualify him for the most powerful position of our country.. I don't know about you but only fools can vote for this reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"just the usual shoddy political journalism" my [expletive deleted]!

When it's "just sloppy" the errors and omissions cut both ways. When ALL of the errors and omissions cut the same way, it's an organized, directed effort, use whatever term you want to. But if the term you choose doesn't imply (or even excludes) INTENT, it is just plain inaccurate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People vote stupid here in America.
So if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the stupid who hate Clinton would go and vote for whomever the Repug nominee would be simply to vote AGAINST Clinton.
The same will happen if Obama is nominated.

The people of America vote stupid, that is why the Chimp was elected TWICE.
Along with election fraud, Alfred E. Neuman was handed the presidency.

The stupid are still mighty proud of themselves for "electing" America's first little fart dictator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, the polls were slanted in that they left out Richardson, "the Other Bill."

If we are to look at Issues that will predominate our country going into the election less than eleven months from today, we leave out the one candidate that has the best record and experience.

Bill Richardson is by far the candidate with the best record and the best Plan for 2009-2012 when it comes to the Great Issue of 2008.

The League of Conservation Voters endorses Bill Richardson for a number of reasons, among them is the probability that the Whole Environment, not limited to considerations pertinent to Global Warming, will be the One Great Issue of 2008.

Some believe the Wars, in Iraq, Iran and the other hot spots that will arise.

But, The War Issue is an Environmental issue tied to Peak Oil, energy independence, and corporate greed. Alternative energies, then, are key issues, and having a Plan to extricate ourselves from the dependence upon oil/fossil fuels will be critical independent of causality of global warming. The other Green issues are also critical to our future, some of which have little impact on global temperatures.

Water is an Environmental Issue that is in crisis, and its availability and equitable distribution has nothing to do with global temperatures in the immediate future; water is an "E" issue i itself, and is tied to the hegemony of the Corporate State versus the needs of the population. It is important enough in itself to call for a Constitutional Amendment for the fair distribution of water-for-people before water-owned-by-businesses.

The Immigration issues are also "E" issues. Whether we want to admit this or not, we have a dependent economy, and need foreign labor to eke out the economy that we have, sinking or not. Farms and much of the service industry are rife with questionable practices that pollute air, water and those who labor to keep those industries alive, while farming, janitorial services, and other industries dump an untold amount of chemicals into the local environments in which they operate. The depletion of nutrients in the soil, and soil ruination, are creeping up as the availability of land decreases, leading us rapidly into another Environmental Crises that will drop within the next four years.

Bill Richardson is the only candidate with a Plan to make changes in how we address these issues, while the others and the media that report on the various campaigns ignore the looming crises related to ALL Environmental Issues, echoing slogans about global warming while offering a dearth of solutions.

Perhaps there is real fear of a strong Richardson movement in the Corporate boardrooms, because the Other Bill is one candidate whose Plan, if put into effect, will change the way we do business in America, and bring about some those (empty) promises made by Obama and Edwards. That is to say, it is Richardson's experience and leadership that is needed to bring about the change that others talk about, yet have no Strategy to achieve. With Richardson, we will see much more of the local movement take root, the states will be empowered to set higher environmental and entrepreneurial standards, and the Solar Age will more rapidly come about, freeing us from the dominance of global corporations.

Thomas A Nagy, Global Cooling Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They were waiting for their charter jets to
travel to Iowa.
That tells a ton about prospects of this country.You bet Guilliani,Edwards,all of them
do have at their disposals charter jets.
Who pays for it,motivations ?
Any hope for the struggling?Do not think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For what it's worth, Thom Hartmann conducted a telephone call-in poll today on his show (I get it on Air America/XM Satellite Radio), asking people to indicate for whom they'd vote in a democratic primary. Edwards was hands down the choice of the majority of respondents, with Obama a distant second. I think the republicans are petrified of the prospect that he'll be the nominee.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We should not allow the most money or media coverage to determine who our candidates are. God help us if we do. Edwards is the closest to FDR, and if ever we needed another FDR it is now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sen. Clinton would be the worst Democratic nominee possible. Progressives would vote for her by virtue of her being a Democrat, but this does not translate to the electorate. Especially independent voters. Clinton stands for nothing, her husband is killing her chances, and she has a special way of annoying the electorate. I hope Edwards gets the Democratic nomination by a plurality of votes. I doubt any candidate can get an outright majority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares? It's so god-damn obvious they're all the same. They're rich elites who answer to their rich buddies.
Why can't people see past stupid candidates. How about changing the system. Start with a real third party. Who cares if the Democrats lose, vote Green. Democrats are just as sleazy as Republicans.
How about changing the electoral process? How about not being fat consumers?
This is all so stupid to me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]