It's obvious neither Dem candidate is a sure win in November.

[mac2]

http://www.fulcrumgallery.com/ProductList.aspx?cat=categories_subjnew_scenic_waterfalls&source=GoogleAdWords&ad=waterfallsprints&gclid=COmooYHW348CFRqwOAodvklikg

Should we go back and do it over with Edwards as the candidate for President? Where are the focus groups to decide the best candidate against McCain? Seems the party never worries about winning but who is the "first this or that" President or VP. Do they want to lose again?

[MNDemNY]

1. Seems we will be riding the "High Horse" to defeat.

[papau]

18. Proud that Hill is not VP and still 80% of her votes go to Obama the loss will be a Starbucks moment

[Romulox]

2. It's similar to 2004, when the party bosses decided *any* Democrat would beat W easily...

The same arrogance is currently in play, imo.

[MNDemNY]

3. "any" Democrat would win, Obama or Clinton, not so much.

[NJObamaWoman]

4. Hell no because I don't like Edwards.

This is coming from a BO supporter too. I never cared for Edwards before and even now after his endorsement of BO.

[MNDemNY]

6. See post # 1

[flpoljunkie]

15. But picking VP is a "business decision." if Obama thinks Edwards is the best choice, so be it.

[papau]

19. Hillary Hate drives money - and that is the business that Obama is in

[muryan]

25. None of my donations were against Hillary

they were FOR Obama. 75,000 people didn't show up in Oregon to hear him trash Hillary, they came to hear him speak about his vision for the future.

[flpoljunkie]

37. Got any proof for that baseless accusation?

[Occam Bandage]

40. That's ridiculous. Most Dems like Hillary.

[AllentownJake]

5. No offense

but taking the nomination away from the first black man or first woman to have a legit shot and handing it to a white southern male who dropped out in January absent any scandal is the best way to ensure defeat. Offend both of the parties biggest supporters women and african americans at the same time.

[Occam Bandage]

7. No. Edwards is one of our weakest GE candidates. The only reason

he did marginally better in the polls against McCain (the 1-year-out polls, mind you) is that he had name recognition, and that nobody had bothered attacking him in three years.

[onehandle]

22. December and January were 1 year ago?

Some of you can try to rewrite history all you like but the fact is that national and key state polls showed Edwards strongest up until the day he dropped out.

And he was #1 at DU even after Super Tuesday.

Does the truth hurt that much. Hmm?

[Occam Bandage]

28. December is 11 months out from November. January is 10. And again, the only reason Edwards was

doing well was that he had name recognition and that nobody had said a bad word about him in three years, while Clinton and Obama were duking it out. However, he had all the disadvantages of Clinton and Obama rolled into one, and none of the advantages. He would have been a puffball in the GE.

I don't see what DU has to do with that. Edwards was DU's first choice here. That doesn't really mean much.

[onehandle]

36. Leading in polls is a disadvantage.

Gotcha.

Then Hillary and Obama are doooooooomed!

[Occam Bandage]

38. Not at all what I said. Polls months away from an election are meaningless.

Right now, Johnny Mac is running competitively with Obama and Hillary. However, nobody's laid a finger on him in months, while Obama and Hillary are beating the snot out of each other. He'll deflate once he starts getting attacked.

[onehandle]

42. So that makes Obama and Hillary's polls more relevant months out than Edwards' polls.

That makes your premise an opinion and nothing more.

[Occam Bandage]

45. Certainly not. None are relevant except as a curiosity.

[Straight Shooter]

8. "Seems the party never worries about winning but who is the "first this or that" President or VP"

That really doesn't make any sense. This is the first election we've had a "first this or that" candidate at this stage of the election campaign. The rest of our Dem candidates have been white males. Unless you count JFK, the "first Catholic."

[sfaprog]

11. Not true

First wheelchair-using/handicapped: FDR

[MonkeyFunk]

14. The public didn't know

that FDR used a wheelchair, though.

[sfaprog]

16. True

I've been meaning to read more on FDR. I wonder if he had maybe gone public in 1940 if he would have been able to win another term.

[msallied]

30. Um... he was elected 4 times as President.

And died in 1945, just into his 4th term.

[Occam Bandage]

41. Er, he did win another term. He won four terms. And died in office.

[sfaprog]

46. Duuuuuh

There were other Democratic contenders, and some didn't want a four-term presidency. I was saying, had he gone public with his physical problems, if his opponents would have successfully trumped up his "weakness".

[Straight Shooter]

17. FDR

He hid his disability well. He knew it would alter people's perception of him.

[msallied]

32. Not only that, but

the press was a different animal back then. They didn't sensationalize on such things. FDR also had several mistresses. The paradigm with the media changed after the Nixon era, I think.

[Straight Shooter]

43. Absolutely. FDR and the press had an "understanding" concerning his disability.

I think the most drastic change came about with Gary Hart and his "Monkey Business." When the press realized how salacious tidbits on a politician sells with the public, they threw all their journalistic scruples out the window.

I suspect that JFK got a lot more than a blowjob in the Oval Office. Imagine the brouhaha today if we had a president connected sexually/romantically to a movie star like Marilyn Monroe.

[msallied]

44. I have often thought of that myself.

And you're right about Gary Hart. Very good point. At some point the media realized that sex sells and they haven't been able to let go of that. Probably because in a way, they are right. Ugh.

[Orangepeel]

9. No candidate is a sure win. But the one who ran the best primary campaign is the best bet.

That's Obama.

[msallied]

34. I agree! I've never seen so many people

doubt the winner.

[kentuck]

10. It doesn't matter...

We could have nominated Evan Bayh. What's important is that Democrats unite behind the candidate. It is the division that loses elections for us. As well as our refusal to speak up during character attacks by the Republicans.

[endarkenment]

12. It is obvious one candidate cannot win in November.

As Senator Clinton will not get the nomination, she cannot win in November. Consequently, it really would be in the best interests of everyone here on DU who desires a win for the Democratic candidate in November and a defeat of the Republican candidate in November to get to work right now to ensure that Obama beats McCain.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. I agree it wont' be a cakewalk

but what makes Edwards a better candidate than either of the two very strong candidates we have now?

[featherman]

20. Silly stuff. John Bush McCain can't win the GE this year.

He's a terrible candidate and a worse campaigner and his party is badly damaged and in rapid decline.
The sky is not falling. Get a grip.

[democrat_patriot]

21. McSame has purged 5 lobbyists from his campaign.

Some with ties to Ferdinand Marcos for God sakes. And I have heard nothing on this except for KO in the MSM.

McSame has an excellent chance in November.

[featherman]

29. Insider stuff - low info swing voter doesn't care, doesn't watch cable news

Over 100 million vote and we on DU obsess about who said what on some cable news show watched by less than 1/2 million already high information political junkies. That stuff doesn't make or break elections. Just saying.

[thewiseguy]

23. Yes with the amnesty agenda it sure will be hard to win the election!

[msallied]

24. What a bunch of defeatist bullcrap.

Perhaps it's attitudes like yours, lack of confidence in our candidates, that is the cause of our defeats.

[opihimoimoi]

26. Obama will kick McCramps Ass in Nov

nuph said

[Ichingcarpenter]

39. YOU GOT TO SEE THIS TOON... McCain and Obama DEBATE.!!!!

[opihimoimoi]

48. Poor man, he jus don know when to STFU

McCain is toast

[CK_John]

27. Don't worry McCain will be pulled to bring in the Cheney pick. n/t

[Clear Blue Sky]

31. Nobody is a sure winner this early.

[Exultant Democracy]

33. Have you been paying any attention to the recent congressional special elections. The reps are sunk.

[spinbaby]

35. Really

We could run a turnip against McCain and it would win by a landslide.

[Buck Rabbit]

47. Edwards? If your leftist candacy gets crushed in Dem primaries

what chance would it have in the GE.

I thought his platform was terrific. But if you're too far left for Democrats you have no chance in the General.

He also had the huge disadvantage of running on a platform that was 180 degrees from his established though short Senate record.

Many people like me, who voted for Kucinich in the 2004 primaries, were very skeptical of how a centrist New Dem hawk, flips a switch and becomes an anti-war leftist populist at almost the same time Clinton pre-announces and the DLC power structure immediately jumps on board with her. Coincidence?

But I do agree that Obama will have a tough road. Hillary would have an impossible one as a GE campaign would be all about Bill fatigue, and the Clenis, and the pardons, and his business dealings post presidency. Edwards however is far from the answer.

If the convention is hopelessly deadlocked and you want a great progressive with less baggage draft Feingold. If you want a sure thing go with Gore. If though, Obama has won on pledged delegates and popular vote of DNC sanctioned primaries a coup based on the "electabality" will be a sure November defeat no matter who you pick.

[LWolf]

50. I'll take Feingold or Gore.

I understand your point about "winning" the pledged delegates and popular vote, but I don't think this was a clean primary from the opening bell.

When the primaries are scheduled to weight the results from some states more than others, it's not clean. There were exactly 2 caucuses and 2 primaries, not counting Michigan and Florida, before everyone else dropped out. Those 4 states got to narrow the field for the rest of us. I, for one, would never have voted for Obama or HRC, given any other choice.

When "debates" are run by corporate media who favor some candidates over others before a vote is ever cast, it's not clean. Chris Dodd's "talk clock" documented this dirty practice after every debate.

When it's not clean, there is no true mandate from the voters.

[Swamp Rat]

51. or Kucinich

[LWolf]

52. Of course, lol.

I was offering up good compromise candidates, not the ideal. ;)

[Swamp Rat]

53. One can dream.

:hi:

[Buck Rabbit]

54. Hello, my fellow Cascadian Comrade,.

The primary system is hardly a pure demonstration of democracy, and this is the first time in my long life I can remember our own state primary having any notice on a National level.

But while acknowledging the flaws of the current system, indulge me while I point out some positive observations I have made while watching this play out.

The drawn out primary season can allow a dynamic force to come out of no where and build a populous groundswell to overtake a front runner whose main attribute may be no more than name recognition. Dean in 2004 and Obama this time forced the media to pay attention to them by creating a grassroots groundswell of support. When the media turned on them, Obama had the ability to fend off their change of fickled favor, Dean did not.

Obama imposed himself on the media. If you're a Republican you own the media, a populist must have the personal dynamics to compel them to cover you. Chris Dodd and our beloved Dennis K. lack this ability.

Presidential races these days are a media war and I think that we are ending up with the best media warrior the democrats had running.

[suston96]

49. Obvious........? Maybe not.......

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May20.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May20.html