We haven't even had the Iowa caucus and already Hillary/Obama have been declared the defacto 1st and 2nd place winners.

Both of them have some negatives to overcome in their own party; to become president they would have to appeal to 51% of the likely voters.

Back in late 2003, Howard Dean was the-next-great-thing and see how he washed out. Don't anybody count your chickens before they hatch.

Edwards as VP nominee again is possible but why would any Dem want him heading the ticket. Its a loser!

Talking about experience, where is his?

Gerry

at least he was successful at something prior to going into government.....then there is Bush. A three time failure at business and then daddy hooks him up with the guys buying the Rangers.....anybody would have been a success with a dad like that.

I'm afraid I agree with Gerry. There's something about Edwards that doesn't feel right.

I remember when he first arrived on the national scene as a candidate, and I was quite excited and intrigued by this intelligent and, to me here in the Northeast, unknown guy. He's no fool and he had - and has - genuinely thoughtful proposals. But during that entire Kerry/Edwards campaign, he kept repeating the same old things. After awhile, I knew his mantras and began to hear them as campaign speeches well waxed. After awhile, I stopped listening altogether. He never sparked for me again.

Might he yet? I'll stay open-minded, but he's got some work to do...

I am (still) a registered Republican who has never "hated" Hillary, but find her basically a socialist Lady Macbeth. Her voice is like nails down a chalkboard for me.

But I have to admit, I started liking her a bit more this past You Tube audition - I mean "debate"- and if she can charm me she can win a lot of others over.

From my perspective the Democrats are all basically soft socialists who want to take peoples' money, initiative and energy away and manage Americans' lives for them, for their own stupid good. The only saving grace is the fact that Americans are fundamentally small "c," libertarian type conservatives and typically tend to resist this kind of controlling nannyism. So, from a policy point of view, Hillary is as good or bad as any other Dem. And I have to admit, she's damn smart. That would be a breath of fresh air after The Dolt.

Another reason conservatives should not cry to hard if a Dem makes it in, is that Bush has so cynically goneout of his way to make this HIS war, the Republicans' war, that the Dems naturally don't feel that we're really threatened much by terrorists (its Bush "fear mongering" you know), that we don't really have much now at stake in Iraq. Too many believe that once Bush leaves the White House, peace will break out. We need a Democrat in the White House getting toe-curling intelligence reports every morning, deciding how much or little to share with Americans; having to decide how to hopefully normalize and institutionalize what we need to do to stay safe from terrorists as we did with the Cold War; make decisions about how to use our soft vs. hard power in the Middle East; getting tested by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran once he/she's in power. That then makes it every American's war, as it should be understood.