The only way Democrats can lose the White House in 08?

D.I.N.O. Hillary Clinton. You go girl! It's all about you!

Bush-Lite and her K Street allies want to send Ohio jobs to Peru.

Yep...dismiss Edwards...
This kinda, maybe shows..
the support for Edwards is a little bit deeper..

The problem is that Edwards loses NY, NJ, and PA to Giuliani...so the general election never even gets to Ohio for the Dems.

We aren't losing NY/NJ/PA to Giuliani, but he's not going to be the GOP nominee anyway.

I tend to think general election match-ups right now are meaningless, but I do think Edwards would have some advantages starting out, basically because he is a populist Southern white man, and voters in Ohio seem pretty comfortable with that. See Clinton for second part, Sherrod Brown for the first.

Edwards appears the least conservative of the group of Democrats running for president that have a high level chance of winning.

I will not vote for Hillary here in New York...

Wrong on the first count (check out the top-tier Dems' progressive record first and then pontificate); and meaningless on the second count: Hillary will not need your vote to win NY, so please do not let the door hit you on the way out...

Look its the 15% who are undecided in those polls who will decide this election. Besides we don't know how the campaign will go. I suspect that Clinton will do best, but maybe Obama might do well to. Edwards would loose a general election cause he wouldn't have any money till the convention. He won't win this primary anyway. Even if he won Iowa Hillary would beat him in NH and SC.

"Edwards could not even manage to swing his home state of NC into the Dem column in 2004 against a very weak Bush"

Excuse me? Bush did pretty well for being 'very weak'. As I recall, North Carolina is a fairly red state. At least, Jesse Helms tenure would lead one to believe that.

It is important for American families in this Presidential debate, that the candidates point out their plans to eradicate the illegal drug consumption. It is alarming the hallucinogenic doing everywhere, surpassing the 200 billion dollars a year. We all most been informed reading books like “The Dope Runner” that tell us how the drug cartels operate creating corruption and death all over.

ReTodd wrote on November 14, 2007 8:50 PM:

"Edwards could not even manage to swing his home state of NC into the Dem column in 2004 against a very weak Bush"

Excuse me? Bush did pretty well for being 'very weak'. As I recall, North Carolina is a fairly red state. At least, Jesse Helms tenure would lead one to believe that.

Excuse you nothing! Bush is from Texas, Edwards was the native son. If he can't compete in his own home state, no matter how red, and he would be very weak in the northeast against a Giuliani, what is his formula for putting together enough electoral votes to win? It would be 2000 and 2004 redux.

Hillary's formula is simple: She carries all the states that Kerry/Edwards had carried in 2004 and then easily wins AR, et voila, she is POTUS without having to win Ohio...

Plus Americans now know even more about Kerry than we did in 2004, and it's not flattering. So he would do even worse now. Nothing has happened in 4 years to make him more credible or attractive. Of course, he was not allowed to run in 2008, because his wife Tarayza Heinz, who holds the purse strings, told him she was tired of being embarrassed and having to apologize. She was not ever real interested in being the first African-American First Lady anyway.

"Hillary's formula is simple: She carries all the states that Kerry/Edwards had carried in 2004 and then easily wins AR, et voila, she is POTUS without having to win Ohio"

Except that, such a formula would only get her 258 votes. She'd need one other big state, like Florida or Ohio, or two smaller states, like Missouri and Nevada, to win.

The original idea in a democracy was to have different candidates. Clinton is tracking as close as possible to Bush to raise funds. Trouble is, despite what the media tells you, the public isn't stupid. They don't like NAFTA, the transfer of wealth to the rich, or war. They like Edwards and Kucinich no matter what the lying polls say.

I am tired of this bunk about any dem running (other than kucinich or gravel, they don't count) losing NY, NJ, Conn or cali against mr. 9/11. There is no gd way any dem breathing would lose those states based on mr. 9/11's position and campaign. No way. People in those states haven't been following what he has been saying up until this point. When they hear it, they will run for the hills. He will be luck to get the die hard republican vote, let alone any dems or independents.

Also, any dem will do better in the general than clinton II. She is too polorizing and devisive. Actually, poll after poll match ups show obama and edwards doing as well as or better than clinton II matched up against potential republican nominees. Obama and edwards have more up-side than clinton II and not as high negatives. In fact, obama at this point will draw about 40% of republican support. That's huge and screams for obama being the nominee to unite the country. Clinton II will only add to the divisions and more of the same.

my bad.