Please, please, please. Any Democrat but Clinton.

I predict that John Edwards will be the first big name implosion on the Democratic side, ala John McCain. Everyone but the political class seems to grasp that the man has been running for president longer than he's been in the Senate, and that being a first-rate trial attorney is not the best preperation for the top office in the country. Just sayin'. We'll see what the voters (and donors) think.

Clinton/Obama 2008.

Well we know where prognosticator two stands: in line with republican propaganda about Edwards and how evil trial lawyers are. While we're basing our decisions on GOP talking points, we might be leery of Hil on account of her being a murderer, lesbian, man-hater, etc etc...

Mr. Edwards is advised by Mr. Trippi, whose previous client (Mr. Dean) adhered to a similar One State Strategy (which Mr. Trippi inherited from Mr. Caddell, who advised Mr. Carter in 1975/76). Bet the farm on Iowa, and lost the farm in Iowa.

So... he dropped from pie in the sky down to even with hillary? You made it sound like he imploded. The vote's 6 months off. These polls don't mean a damn thing, except that edwards is definitely disproportionately popular in Iowa as opposed to the rest of the country.

There's nothing at all intelligent we can say about what's going on, except that all the candidates still have a good 6 months they need to hold out without imploding.

@4 I disagree Christopher. I think you can be a full-blooded Dem and want to see more than someone's courtroom experience as a reason to elect them. Along with, yes, their wealth and the facty they're lawyers, Both Hillary and Obama bring years of community and local experience to the table. Edwards fails in this regard. And what? We Dems are supposed to actually like the fact we're over-lawyered in our candidates? Just spare me Edwards, he gives empty suits a bad name.

Isn't winning Iowa a sure bet that you DON'T get the nomination?

Here's the dilemma: we need Hillary's steel nerves and take no bullshit personality. We need the policies of Edwards (at least) or even Kucinich. We need the image, style, and mainstream sensibility of Obama. The resume of Richardson wouldn't help either.

But that's four people, and we only get one. Though Edwards is the best compromise of principle and electability right now, I really don't have any clue who's the best candidate.

I actually think that despite the knee-jerk reaction of a lot of people, Hillary Clinton is the most electable. I'm just not sure I want her to be elected. I didn't like the Bill Clinton presidency, except as compared to recent GOP presidencies, and the best bet is that a Hillary presidency will be a Bill presidency without his (double-edged) charisma.

As for Iowa, it's been predictive of the eventual nominee for Democrats 5 out of the last 9 times since 1972--six if you give it to Carter in 1976 even though "Uncommitted" came out ahead. On the other hand, only once did the winner of Iowa win the general election (1996, Clinton, unopposed), unless you count Gore which only makes it twice.

Eli --

If the caucuses were held in Iowa today, John Edwards would win. Nobody in any of the presidential camps really doubts that. That is why Hillary is already running ads there. Iowa learned to love Edwards in 2004 because of what he stood for -- and his message has not changed. He has been a staunch defender of individual rights, and a champion for both "ordinary" and hidden Americans. It is quite simply part of who he is.

While other candidates repeat the mantra promise of "change", Edwards is the only major candidate to actually put forth substantive plans on the major issues. Some may want to continue the riff on the price of a haircut. I am more concerned with the price of healthcare, the price of housing and the human and monetary price of the war.

We all know so-called "national polls" in August 2007 historically tell you nothing about who will actually win in Iowa, New Hampshire South Carolina and the other early states. I like Edwards' chances. More importantly, I think he gives us the best -- and maybe only -- shot at getting back the White house. The polls support this. Our choice could be a Romney/Jeb administration.

But folks can decide for themselves. Edwards is coming to town in September. (Details still being firmed up) Come, listen, look for yourselves.

Jenny Durkan, Washington State Chair, Edwards for President

Even Chris at the Washington Post has to admit that Obama is winning the audience and the mainstream Dem and Independent voters in his speeches and debates.

Edwards isn't even pinging.

Sorry, Jenny. America wants Gore/Obama.

All I really want at this point is for HRC to not get the nomination.

I think it's interesting that Hills is doing so well nationally, but so poorly among progressives like the people who post on Slog. The better she does in the big national polls, the more vitriol seems to come out of the posts here. I wonder what that means.

Jenny, Jenny, Jenny...

You really should do some research before posting. The last thing you want to do is pander on SLOG. The ridicule will not be pretty.

I'm a fence sitting Democrat, waffling between Obama, Hillary, and Edwards. Your type of posts makes me less likely to vote for Edwards (assuming, of course, that we actually get to vote in a primary).

Edwards has been consistently ahead in poll match ups with Republican candidates. Ok, you weren't spoon fed that info so I can see why you might think he is behind, or could be behind, or might lose, or will explode.

One third of his fundraising comes from southern states. Check out opensource.org if it's not too much trouble. I know what is easy and most political press go for easy. Would that be you?

I get worked up about Hillary because I fear the power of the anti-Clinton propaganda laid down in the last decade. I see the same thing in Iraq: People in the USA who were normally moderate to liberal and had the sense to know better about the supposed 9-11 connection still had Gulf War propaganda in the back of their heads about how America were the knights in shining armor saving the little people of the Middle East from the Big Bad Wolf. An old romantic idea fomented by Toby Keiths and Bush Seniors helped Bush Junior run us into Iraq without a hint of resistance from the media or elected officials.
I see the same thing in a Hillary candidacy. I keep banging this gong, but I know a basically liberal-moderate dumbfuck who believes the Clintons were murderers, because some relative he loves and respects says so... and that guy believes it because Rush Limbaugh said it 15 years ago or something. There is a radiation of psychotic Hillary hate I can feel in the air, and it's going to come home to roost. Maybe it's no surprise the rest of the primary-voting dems of America don't notice it, because they keep losing shit left and right. I'm kind of an outsider to the human race- I'm not talking to democratic friends on the cellphone on buses, I'm hearing the voices of America, in all their weird, misled, delusional stupor. Storm's a-brewin, folks. Hillary will probably get the nom, and either lose or win and get assassinated by a hillbilly before her inauguration.

What's up with that sketch? The square jaw. The bulbous nose. Someone's trying to make Edwards look like a cross between Robert Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

FUCK Hilary Clinton. She's the next Al Gore. Misguided attempt to seek the center and compromise everything that counts, not smart enough to win.

Reminds me of German politics--the conservative Catholic party's consistent attempts to force the "Social Democrats" to vote hawk, thus alienating their base. Karl Rove's last success story, right before the Congressional recess and his resignation.

Jenny (@ 10) --

Thanks for your comments. It's great to see someone from the local Edwards campaign jumping into the fray here on Slog.

However, I want to clarify two points:

1) I didn't mention the $400 haircut in my column.

2) The poll I referred to is, in fact, a state poll. It was conducted in Iowa by the University of Iowa.

Edwards isn't on my radar. Sure, if he gets the nom I'll vote for him because I won't vote for a Repub (not because I wouldn't vote for a Repub but because there isn't a Repub I would ever vote for who is running).

But I don't think I'll have to worry about that because I think it'll be the Hillary & Barry Show. I like Barry more than Hil but either way, whatever.

With his solid progressive platform on domestic issues, Edwards would’ve made a great candidate in 2000. However, I don’t yet find him convincing on national security issues—he lacks gravitas. Like it or not, that’s a litmus test any D will have to pass to get elected president.

Anyone find him convincing on international/security issues?

I finally realized something today (two things, actually): I don't know and I don't care. Clinton, Edwards, Obama... I do not trust any of them. I am kind of sick of hearing people SO certain that Clinton is unelectable; that Edwards would be this, Obama would be that. So many people seem to think they know these things, but we actually don't because these folks are totally dishonest, and will say anything that their adviser brainstorm. I like Edwards' populist message but it is so smarmy that I don't believe a word. Even the "experts" don't have a clue who will be the best match-up in the general election. Yet the combination of politics and blogs leads to people so certain. Reminds me of investment advisers.

I know this is kind of a pessimistic post, but it is how I feel, and why I can't really care which of these three politicians gets the nomination. I do, however, want the democrats to win.

Sorry, Jenny. America wants Gore/Obama.

I'm an American, and I don't want Gore/Obama. I'm not sure about Edwards -- I'll take a look at his economic policies and see what I think. But I do know that Gore has never outlined an economic plan that would protect the interests of rural voters. Obama's a rockstar candidate. He's got nothing.

Edwards will be out after December/January. BTW, why the HELL cann't we get Gore into the race? Even though at this point it is too late for him to get in.

And the thought of Hillary scares me. Also, I agree with the previous post about Bill, he was not that great. The romance about the Clinton Era is just there due to the Bush nightmare.

GIVE US A LIBERAL FOR ONCE IN OUR LIVES IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!

Am I the only one who feels sorta icky inside when Edwards speaks?

It's weird to me that people feel so sure of themselves to make these blanket pronouncements (It'll be Hillary / America wants xyz / Edwards will be out / etc.). There are a lot of people in America and a lot of people in this race and a lot of time until anything decisive happens.

I don't feel sorta icky when Edwards speaks, but I guess I can see where you're coming from. Still, what he's actually saying and the things he's chosen to do with his life speak to me in a way the other candidates have so far failed to do - at least this week. As far as I'm concerned, any one of the potential candidates is a possibility, up until the caucus or whatever it is we have here.

Cascadian @ 9 and Jude @ 22:

Yeah, that's basically how I feel as well. I think Hilary would make the best technocrat/administrator, but I cringe everytime she opens her mouth. I want her as chief of staff

Think I'll be coming back around come election time to distribute "I told you so"s about Hil, but clearly I'm boring the Judes and Levis of the world, so I guess I'll putter off.
Just remember: If (more likely when) Hil gets the nom, it will end with her losing the election, or winning by a small margin and getting assassinated. That's the country we live in. I hereby promise to not bother commenting on these Dem-Nom threads. Adios.
-

Hey y'all, FYI: John Edwards is not a liberal he just plays one on TV. And, if he thought it'd get him the nomination, I'm sure he'd arrange for his wife to die. Total and complete panderer.

I don't think Hills has to worry about taking a bullet if she wins the election. Dems hate Bush WAAAAAAY more than Rs ever hated Bill, and Shrub has never had to worry about getting tapped.

That whole assassination thing is weird. It's never some pissed off ideologue- it's always a nutball. Ford was almost tapped twice, and he was total Wonder Bread.

Seems like it's just the luck of the draw when some cultist or Paris Hilton stalker will decide to make a name for themselves.

Christopher - Not bored, just doubtful. If you are right you are right - there will always be someone who is right. I just remember the 06 caucuses at Seattle Central, all the Kerry folk who were so sure he was the only electable nominee (I went with Dean I think). You never really know, and we have a whole year to go. Besides, I understand that people said Hillary had no chance winning the senate seat in NY. Again: who the hell knows?

Thursday, August 16, 2007
EDWARDS LEADS IN LATEST IOWA POLL
Democrat John Edwards is banking on Iowa to boost his nomination hopes -- as it did four years ago -- and a new poll out today gives him more hope that he might just be on the right track.

The former US senator from North Carolina led among likely Iowa caucus-goers surveyed with 30 percent, compared to 22 percent for Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, 18 percent for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and 13 percent for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

Edwards parlayed a second-place finish in Iowa in 2004 to national prominence, and a place on the ticket as John Kerry's running mate. This year, he is spending far more time and money in Iowa, the first caucus state, than in New Hampshire, the first primary state.

The poll released today was conducted on Aug. 2 and 3 of 509 past Democratic caucus attendees or those who say they are likely to attend the caucus. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.

Peter D. Hart Research Associates, a respected Democratic polling firm, conducted the survey for the ONE Campaign, a nonpartisan group that is pushing presidential candidates to address global poverty.

Among other poll findings, 98 percent said America's standing in the world has suffered in recent years, and 91 percent said they were dissatisfied with the role the United States plays in the world.

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor at 06:35 PM. The Boston Globe