Go with the sure guys (Edwards and Obama) instead of risking it on Hillary.

Dean was too risky, vote for electability in Kerry...

Hillary is the best campaigner and is more savvy politically...particularly in dealing with the right wing sleaze machine. My money is on her being the strongest candidate in the general...

Declaring a "vast right-wing conspiracy" was a real smooth way of dealing with the right.  If I remember correctly, Elmer, it's one of the reasons she got so unpopular.

Edwards is a sufficient campaigner.  After all, he did win an election in a Red State.  And Obama won one of the largest victories in political history in Illinois.  Hillary won by a lot smaller margin against Lazio, who was a horrible candidate picked as a last minute replacement as Giuliani decided not to run.  Hillary had to carpet-bag to New York to win, and I HATE carpet-baggers.

You say Hillary is the best campaigner?  She's won two elections in Democrat-friendly New York in years that were generally good for Senate Democrats.  Obama's massive victory in 2004, or Edwards striking victory four years after '94 in a Red State, are far more impressive. 

The fact is that polls show Hillary is a less sure bet than Edwards or Obama.  I will continue to think that by nominating Hillary, Democrats would prove they really have no interest in winning anything.

By the way things are going, Democrats will win by a landslide.  The U.S. Treasury yield curve is inverted which at least indicates that investors are sensing a recession.  Bush and Republicans are intransigent and I don't see that changing save a miracle.  Iraq isn't turning any corners.  The Taliban is making a come back in Afghanistan.  And just look at the crowded Republican field for president!

Republicans need a Christmas miracle, but I am afraid all they are getting this year and next are lumps of coal, which incidentally should give us something to do with that 500 year supply we have.

I'm beginning to like John Edwards better all the time.  He's making a hard pitch for the rural vote and one of the few candidates out there talking about poor people issues.  His thoughts on economic fairness are close to what we heard from Jim Webb and now that Mudcat Saunders is working for Edwards, I'm even more attracted to him as a candidate.  Too many Democrats, in pursuit of our own special issues have forgotten our populist roots.

Yeah, there's a lot of BS about the haircuts and the huge house and all.  And I admit, it's kind of discerning.  But not only can the man win the election, but once he does, we'll be able to shift this country's emphasis back towards the common man instead of the very wealthy man.

They are doing better than I could have imagined at this point in time.  I originally thought that Americans wouldn't vote for a black person to be President.  These polls cause me to really question that belief.  I'm still leaning Edwards on the issues, but I've gotta eat prior words where I said Obama wasn't a viable candidate.  Clearly he is.

If you average the three matchups, here is what you arrive at:

AVG Clinton vs AVG Republican: 46/42; +4
AVG Edwards vs AVG Republican: 49/35; +14
AVG Obama  vs AVG Republican: 50/34; +16

I once thought that Clinton may be gunning for VP.  I personally think she would hurt the ticket given her unfavorables - I wouldn't want her as a running mate.  The only way Clinton stands a chance is if she improves her unfavorables.