also, Obama is the least-well-known candidate. Mentioning him by name makes him seem more serious; refusing to do so shows that she does not want to improve his name recognition nor his status as a 'serious' candidate.

Hillary recognizes the real threat to her candidacy lies with Obama and not with Edwards. I agree with the first comment that her response is calculated to avoid giving further press to Obama's name.

I see you're taking the New York Times approach to Clinton...

If the distinction is a real one, and not the product (as you suggest) of the difference in campaign status when the comments were made, I think it is fairly obvious. Edwards and Obama are very different kinds of candidates running different kinds of campaigns. Edwards is a known commodity running a campaign based on concrete specifics and what used to be called "straight talk" (before McCain ruined the phrase). Obama is an unknown running a "glamour" campaign (not meant as an insult, by the way ... it's not that he's unsubstantive, but that he's riding high on all sorts of policy unrelated things like looks, rhetoric, and personal background). He's as vague as you can get, much as Clinton herself is. If she engages him in a policy back-and- forth, she helps him fill in the blanks in his resume and he becomes more formidable.

I'm not sure what the poster above is smoking when he/she says it suggests Clinton considers Obama the more difficult opponent. It seems fairly obvious to me that the one she has engaged more directly is considered the bigger problem. It suggests her team thinks Obama will fade when the glamour goes away and he is dirtied with such unflattering things as ideology and concrete policy proposals.

Also, there's the calendar to think of. Hillary's biggest problems are Iowa and South Carolina. She's never led there, not like in New Hampshire or nationally. It's Edwards that presents the obstacle there, not Obama. Obama's best early state is New Hampshire, where Clinton is strong enough (presumably) to fend him off.

Finally, a one-on-one Clinton-Obama fight is one she should win (based on experience and loyalty to the Clintons). A Clinton-Edwards fight is harder, as Edwards made a lot of loyal friends in 2004 and has been through the wars.

I agree. Clinton wins any two-way match, no matter who's there. Edwards is a spoiler. Take him out early and life will be better for them. Assuming there is no Clark candidacy.

But I wouldn't underestimate something as simple as the frustration that Edwards is just sitting on the sidelines throwing rocks. He didn't do much in the Senate besides campaign for president and now he's complaining that current Senators aren't doing anything. That even ticks me off.

Obama is the more dangerous opponent because he is a sitting senator. Clinton can characterize anything Edwards says as "just talk," since Edwards has been perpetually campaigning (instead of governing) since 2004. Obama, on the other hand, can quickly outflank Hillary on all kinds of issues by making concrete proposals through the senate. She has to be a lot more cautious with him -- particularly when attacking Obama too vocally could partition the Democratic senators into competing Obama vs. Hillary factions.

Historically, being a sitting senator was a negative for a presidential candidate. But we live in atypical times. The Democratically controlled congress is riding a high - and will continue to ride that high as long as the Bush Administration remains such an unpopular foil. Democratic senators have the opportunity to make concrete proposals that directly take on the unpopular Bush Administration and its unpopular war. In my opinion, this puts Edwards at a distinct disadvantage to both Obama and Hillary, each of whom can rely on their position to exhibit "leadership" on all kinds of issues. Edwards can talk about "what he would do if he were president." Obama and Hillary can do the same -- and also talk about what they are doing right now, as senators, to combat the Bush Administration. It's an issue of stature, not just in terms of the candidates themselves, but the ideas they set forth. A concrete senate proposal carries more weight than the words of a mere candidate (even if the senate proposal is a wishy washy, non-binding resolution).

One thing worth noting: if the rumors are true, and Lieberman switches sides, I think Hillary and Obama's advantage over Edwards largely dissipates. If Republicans are controlling the senate agenda, Obama and Hillary will have a much harder time breaking through.

UPDATE: Atrios doesn't think Lieberman switching sides would effect the Democratic majority.

My guess is that HRC's team wants to keep the primary from turning into a binary choice, guessing that the anti-HRC vote (roughly edwards + obama) is enough to overwhelm her. Attacking Edwards both keeps him alive but weakened, while attacking obama writes Edwards out of the story, putting her in the position of facing Obama alone.

I'm personally wondering if HRC's campaign isn't leaving the door open for Obama to sign on as Hillary's running mate.

No way. It's gonna be a white guy.

Funny, I would say the same thing about Hillary.  At least in terms of the media's belief that a Hillary win in the primary is somehow inevitable. 

Hillary is not the media darling. They are calling her the front runner because that is what the polls show. The press is now fawning over her the way they are with Obama. 

My guess is the fawning will eventually end and when it does Edwards will emerge as a strong challenger to Hillary.

I smoked; I inhaled; I enjoyed...but I digress.

I believe that Senator Clinton and her campaign advisors have recognized that her biggest obstacle in the primaries is the Iraq War. I further believe that the Iraq War will be the elephant in the room for caucus and primary folks. Democrats long opposed this war and the national polls only shifted to solid disapproval when the independents joined them, along with a sliver of GOPers. But the first hurdle are those deciders in the primary.

On the Iraq War, Senator Clinton has some explaining to do--and the explanations are not going well. John Edwards owned up to "I made a mistake" but that still raises some questions about his judgment--although we all like that he owned up to the mistake. That leaves Senator Obama who quite eloquently said "no" in a 2002 Chicago speech, although he has suggested that "perhaps" Senator Clinton's vote was driven by faulty U.S. intelligence. (For Senator Clinton to embrace this causative factor would also bring up those who didn't see it that way. You know, folks like Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats she led to vote against this resolution as well as Senate Democrats who voted against it.)

The best campaign response when this difference is brought up is a bland type of response which certainly does not mention the name of the primary candidate who doesn't have any worries on this issue. And that candidate is Senator Obama.

It's a real question if Edwards will "catch fire".

It's also probably best not to over-weight the power of organization and money. Senator Clinton, in a correct strategy in my opinion, wants to leave the impression that she is inevitable due to that organization and that money. Neither ensures the nomination.

We'll wait and see on Obama--fund-raising, campaign gaffs, and policy issues. (As an aside, I don't see much difference on the issues and could vote for any of these three in a general election based on their support for Democratic policies and issues.)

"he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration's Iraq policy."

Hillary is fighting the Bush's failed occupation of Iraq and I did not even know. They ought to hold a press conference.

This time next year all three will not seem as "fresh-faced" to the political junkies but will seem quite fresh to the Democratic folks who make decisions in caucuses and primary elections and start paying attention. I think all three will still be in the race for the nomination next year.

Sorry, but John Edwards has not shown himself to be as politically talented as Bill Clinton. It might happen at some point but it hasn't happened yet.

In terms of gender, I think the GOP tried to demonize Nancy Pelosi and apparently all they fired up were a few GOPers if the 2006 midterm results are any indiciation. She ended up as Speaker so we can see how that turned out.

On race, we'll just have to disagree. I think the Democrats and independents are ready; you don't. We just might have to see how that turns out.

In terms of "Southern" being a necessary criteria for the Democratic candidate, I flat don't buy it. The Democrats have got to get the message that the old Confederacy South is just flat not Democratic anymore--they went to the GOP. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't recruit viable candidates and conduct campaigns--I agree totally with Dean's 50-state strategy. But the nostalgia for what once was needs to stop driving the selection of our presidential candidate. We will not win in these states and we don't need them to win anyway.

If I wanted process stories, I'd read the Times. Less like this, please.

Obama is less recognized than Edwards? Maybe it's just because I'm in Illinois where he just announced to much fanfare, but I think you're really stretching the limits of credulity there.

Edwards was a hood ornament in 2004. Kerry did absolutely all the heavy lifting and Edwards was practically invisible.

If 5 or 6 states move their primaries up to Feb 5 as they most certainly will I think McAuliffe's conventional wisdom goes out the window. For a change our candidate won't be inevitable on the day after NH.

Edwards has built a base in IA. Richardson has to make a stand in NV. Hillary and Obama look good in NH. Edwards should do well in SC but both Obama and Hillary can win the black vote there. After that February 5th will split IL and NY for Obama and Hillary. Very hard to sort out.

As for your question Greg, alot can happen in a month. Hillary wasn't being pilloried by the left a month ago over Iraq. A lot of people want to stop her "inevitable" meme. They see this as good an argument as any to use. She may just be treading lightly instead of attacking those who have a more popular stance now.

I don't think Hillary is going to be able to knock any of the other leading candidates out early. It's just too hard to do so in a multi-candidate race. Remember that Gephardt's last minute ad attacking Dean in Iowa in 2004 ended up hurting them both and allowing Kerry and Edwards to rise to the top. Campaigns are going to be very loathe to repeat that mistake.

It's way too early to say what is going to happen and who is going to rise to the top. Political endorsements don't really end up meaning all that much in these races.

"pollster Mark Penn just claimed that domestic policy was the key

Yeah! tells me something about recent polling results right there...