Does not support Edwards. That is the problem. What has he done to reach that contingent of voter?? He does not have a lot of time to figure this thing out.

Edwards has simply not been able to bust out of the blogosphere, the 'netroots' supporters. To date the politically active internet organizations have yet to produce anything but virtual support for their candidates. The polls on progressive blog sites do not match up at all with polls of real people being polled the old fashioned way. And the real polls are more in synch with real voters who actually get out of their house and vote.

This may change some day, but no candidate banks on the internet aka Howard Dean. It was shocking how much virtual support he had that totally failed to materialize, and I think he was equally shocked the day after Iowa when he gave that crazed speech. So no candidate banks on blog support until it is proved otherwise. Obama's other gamble to go after college kids will likely go nowhere for the same reason. Especially with the earlier primaries and a lot of the colleges being on recess.

We will see, but it is now a race between Obama and Hillary, and if Obama loses in Iowa, then all bets are off. Money does not get you votes either. I think the great weakness of Edwards and Obama has been their inability to organize a message and stay on it.

Just the other day Obama's wife said if Obama loses Iowa it is over. That was a terrible thing for her to say. She more than anyone needs to silence herself. Edwards and his wife have the same problem, for whatever reason. My god, they got in a spat about tangerines for a while. It makes you look small.

Hillary has been spot on, no real mistakes, on message, and when her husband speaks - wow! Look at his bit on Move On.org. Why can't Edwards get on the air and say something like that. It was amazing!! Hillary's health care plan is targeted at Edwards, and slightly better with the credits to business for their legacy health plans. Edwards does not have that in his plan, and Obama does not even cover everyone. He is now getting flooded with insurance company money, because they oppose the Hillary and Edwards plan. So Obama, the voice of real change, is for a more limited status quo plan. That makes no sense. I would also note that Hillary currently has more union endoresement than Edwards or Obama, so the idea of her not getting in with labor is false.

Blogland laments Hillary's military creds, but totally miss the role of Senators, the role of presidents, the whole structure of the thing in military affairs - and they also miss that she is a woman and therefore needs to sound out a tougher message. That kind of rhetoric is what actually allows you to cover an exit. It is like football where the owner gets up and says I have full confidence in my coach, just before he sacks him. The naivete of the blogs is refreshing, but at the same time does not capture the realpolitik needed to be a President. Hillary also understands that. It gives me real concern watching Obama and Edwards run such poor campaigns, because to some extent that becomes a preview of their Presidency.

We will see. But it is getting awfully close to January and it is over by February. My only comfort is how badly badly badly the Republicans look, my god.

As far as Gore. He will not run. No way. I've heard his people, how they want him to. But since his father died, he is through. His father was the one who pushed politics on him. Frankly, he is too decent for the whole process.

thanks for putting it out there.
staffing is everything, ain't it?

As far as Gore. He will not run. No way. I've heard his people, how they want him to. But since his father died, he is through. His father was the one who pushed politics on him. Frankly, he is too decent for the whole process.

A sad commentary of todays politics and society. It is because he is decent that we need him to run.

who are his people? and how do we get close enough to be heard?
scot? somebody has to lead. want money? I got a little. it's make or break time.

if he had been our President these last eight years.

he naivette of the blogs is refreshing but at the same time does not capture the realpolitik needed to be a President.

/eyeroll/

because yes, "the blogs" are made up entirely of children with no experience in gov't, campaign, or meatspace political action. whatever. thanks so much for lumping us all into a bunch. oh, and by the way- there are no women or nonwhite people on "the blogs" either, in case no one told you. i'm sure that's why we're all failing to understand why hillary needs to act more like a football team owner. or whatever your point is.

I challenge this blog to do a poll to see what the composition of this group is. I'm curious.

Presidential Poll

Which Declared Candidate are You Leaning Towards?

Which Candidate do You Prefer for 2008?


_{Turn back to the Constitution - and READ it.}

not a net candidate the way Dean was. His strategy was cleary predicated not on internet support (which is not sufficient, and everyone knows it, though it is helpful) but on union support. It is the union support that matters. The majority of SEIU leaders do support Edwards, they have said so.

Polling this early is indicative, not proscriptive. Remember the ups and downs Kerry had.

Another Closet Republican!!

...the first person here to call me that. Correct, I'm not in lockstep with the DNC or those imbeciles that we call the congressional leadership. If that makes me a closet Republican, I'll consider it a compliment, because it means rhe GOP is sane enough to have me.
That may not be far wrong: my experience teaches me the GOP has more intelligence in the fingernail clippings they threw away last night than the Democrats have in their whole multitudes. People this year have wondered why the Congressional Republicans are always one step ahead of the Democrats. It's no mystery to me.

But for a true elephant in donkey's clothing, look no further than your beloved Hillary. Yes on war, yes on offshoring, yes on tax cuts, no on lobbying reform, no on meaningful changes to campaign financing. I see very little difference between Hillary (trust me, "Hillary" is the kindest thing I've called her in quite some time) and whatever Bush-clone the GOP sends up.

And . . . sorry, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Wouldn't even know where to begin.

Hey, you for prayer in public schools?

...but Hillary would be if it would win her some more votes.

You ever see that happen??

If the 'super tuesday' states decide our candidates, Hillary and Rudy are utter locks

Iowa is not as important as it traditonally was, even if they move their primary back to Jan. 5th which I assume they will. That's why if Edwards wins it, he would need an Obama and Gore endorsement to boost his chances, or if Obama wins it, an Edwards/Gore endorsement. That's the only deal that'll cut it.
I think it is totally corrupt for states to decide when they get to hold their primary. I wish the DNC had a bigger role in this instead.
And you're wrong about Rudy. He's going to implode. So is Thompson. Combine that with Newt not running now, and McCain will do better again. Romney has the advantage now, by default.

because he is tanking in Iowa/New Hampshire. He's doing fine in the super tuesday states

and the Blue America candidates did just fine, thanks. It's an important constituency, but it's only one constituency and only a fool thinks that you can judge it by whether or not its candidates always win - no group always has its candidates win.

Don't believe me, believe Clinton. She went to YKos, and while she said some things the crowd didn't like, she said more things that were clearly panders. I was there and I was listening.

you've always been a Clinton follower. And you know what he means, it's pretty damn clear.

One out of three young African-American men has a conviction record.

Took me a long time to find a cite for this statistic:

VOA

Other stated variants were: a child born in 2000 had a one in three chance of jail time, or that one in three between 20-29 had one now.

Forget it, Jake - it's AmnesiaTown

We sent Edwards money, and hope for the best.

You must mean another Ian:-)
But he is usually correct.

It's when he gets hopeful that his batting average goes down, I think.

Good luck with Edwards, in any case and please report from the front, in whatever manner possible.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

Of course I will. I'll be either the last fan standing or the first in line.

By HOLLY RAMER, AP, September 29

CLAREMONT, N.H. (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards criticized Rush Limbaugh on Friday for referring to some members of the military as ``phony soldiers.''

For his part, Limbaugh said he was referring only to one soldier recently convicted of lying about his service.

Edwards and the campaign of fellow Democrat Chris Dodd took issue with the radio talk show host's characterization of Iraq war veterans who have spoken out against the war. Limbaugh was responding to a caller who argued that anti-war groups ``never talk to real soldiers.''

``They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media,'' the caller said.

``The phony soldiers,'' Limbaugh responded.

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Edwards called on Republicans to denounce Limbaugh in the same way they came down on Democrats after the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org ran an advertisement criticizing Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
More

yet. He needs a bump in NH, he needs the SEIU nod. If he gets the SEIU nod, I'd actually put him as almost even odds with Clinton to win.

But he needs the union organizers badly.

But no one shouldn't work for who they think would make the best nominee. This early these things are only a matter of odds, and I've rolled snake eyes multiple times in a row.

The person I think really doesn't stand a chance, oddly, isn't Edwards - it's Obama.

My hope for any candidate is usally the kiss of death.

As for pessimism, I can do it quite well without any help...Edwards has been my favorite for a long time and this current "Let's hop on the Hillary bandwagon" cult movement is yet another source of personal despair as I look to 11/08 for a tectonic shift in the way this country operates.

I DO subscribe to the opinion above--it is early and as we all know a lot a s*%$ can rain down between now and voting time.

And sniping and snide name-calling at another commenter's honestly and politely-expressed opinions doesn't cut it around here either, Scot.

...Obama isn't any more electable than Hillary. We need to think about making a president rather than making history.

quite chillingly: Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore?

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

I am wondering, though, whether he is going to get grief from Media Matters for America for continuing to paint the Gore of 2000 as a robot (note he even brings up the Gores' convention kiss and calls it "stage managed,) or for newly painting Hillary as a robot. This could get interesting, Frank Rich could become the new hated Maureen Dowd if he keeps it up this sassiness.

That was great. I wish every Hillary fan could read that, but they probably wouldn't understand it anyway. Besides, they'd be too distracted catching the latest episode of Desperate Housewives.

...did she divorce Bill and marry Karl Rove?

~

...is only sharp when compared to his ideological peers. If he told me he'd closed the barn, I'd go check.

First of all, Bill ain't a political strategist - he just a very, very good politician. One of the best.

Second, they're not out of dirt on the Clintons. There was a deal which led to Starr only going after the lie in the immaterial Paula Jones depostion. The dirt almost certainly goes to Arkansas's bi-partisan political climate of corruption. If the implicated GOPers are no longer an issue, the dirt will come out. And if not, the Rove-trained strategists in the GOP will gladly sacrifice their own.

I was impressed with the clips I saw of her handling Timmeh in the last debate. But I think the reason they want her is they've got something that will come out only after she's won the nomination.

more than once that they are doing what they can to ensure Edwards isn't the candidate. And they did that in 2003/4 too. No one wants to say it, but Obama's black, Hilary's a woman and has massive negatives, and Edwards is a white male southerner with a populist shtick.

And these things matter in America. Oh sure, most people won't say in a poll "I'm a racist sexist" but too many of them are. I saw what the desire to be PC and have the first female leader did to the federal NDP in Canada, and I ain't keen to see it happen in the US.

Clinton will probably win a general election, I'd guess, but only because the Republicans have driven their brand so far into the ground that "generic Dem A" can and could win.

She's a stronger candidate than Obama, anyway.

It's not the best candidate who wins, it's who runs the best campaign. So far that's been Clinton.