Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

What is so new about this in politics, blatham? Speaking for myself, I tend to have more respect for Obama, because he does not seem to have the track record of blatant corruption as the Clintons, and he has been more consistent on one of the central issues, Iraq, so even if you don't agree with him, you can at least respect him on that point. I just think the country would be better off to put the Clintons forever into the past. They are not trust worthy and I don't think it is reasonable to ever expect it out of them, and I just don't want to deal with them anymore. If most people were honest, they would also admit the same thing, in both parties.

I think we should also move on from the Bush family. The country needs a fresh set of faces. If Clinton could be defeated, then perhaps the campaign could concentrate more on policies and track record of the new people involved. We could hopefully debate the issues instead of trying to beat back the Clinton machine again.

Using your same theory, the Democrats want to see certain Republicans in the primary defeated, and may even express sympathies toward their opponents, but once we get past the primaries, those sympathies will tend to disappear.

In an attempt to get at that issue, we recently asked Americans if they would make heroic efforts to get out and vote for president if Clinton were the Democratic nominee as opposed to Barack Obama.

The results show that Republicans indeed are a little more likely to say they would attempt to vote if the Democratic nominee were Clinton than if it were Obama - by a 19% to 7% margin. (The majority of Republicans said that it wouldn't make any difference.)

However, the results also show that Democrats would be more likely to turn out too if the nominee is Hillary Clinton as opposed to Barack Obama --- by about the same margin as Republicans.

So the bottom line seems to be that a Clinton candidacy might increase turnout across the board next November - but it would not necessarily work to either her advantage or her disadvantage.

(editor's note: blatham recently suffered a serious variety of bronchitis and is presently on steroids...true actually).

This whole debate goes to the core of my problem with Hillary's campaign strategy (at least the way I see it). Everything seems to work backwards for her.

1. While Democrats disagree with her support for the Iraq War, they subconsciously use her support for the war to credit her as a tough leader who will keep us safe (despite supporting the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation, she leads in foreign policy judgement questions in polls).

2. While Democrats disagree with her campaign's various underhanded tactics against Obama (kindergarden, cocaine, etc), they subconsciously credit her as a tough campaigner who will use similar tactics against the Republicans (this is why she leads in electability questions in polls - people see the Clinton machine as mean and tough).

In both cases, the brain says "Hillary wrong!" while the gut nevertheless says "Hillary strong!"

Which Democrat is a winner?

With the Iowa caucuses looming, victory-hungry Democrats want to know -- who is the most "electable"? Here's our best (totally wild) guess as to how each candidate might fare in November...

okie
I suspect the chances of you expressing that opinion re the Bush family would be zero if Jeb had run. And your opinions on other political matters are so poorly informed that I've no interest in addressing them.

If it was Jeb and Clinton, then obviously I would have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not that I think Jeb is evil at all,

More from Edwards:

• "Not everyone in America is struggling. Investors on Wall Street took home a record-setting $48 billion in bonuses this past year, even after losing millions in the credit meltdown."
• "In 1960, the average CEO made 41 times what the average worker made. But in 2005, the average CEO made over 400 times the average workers salary. The share of corporate profits going to CEO pay has doubled since the 1990s. Meanwhile, the value of the minimum wage has plummeted 30% since 1979."
• "We must renew America's basic bargain with the middle class and remove the stranglehold that entrenched corporate interests have on Washington."
• "In order to fulfill our obligations to future generations of Americas, we must restore balance between America's corporations and America's working families."

Hey John, FYI, it's not just Brock and Trip who read the Journal. It's 2 million other people with household incomes averaging well above $200,000 a year. If you were aiming for the middle-class readership, you shot a little bit high. Maybe it's time to rethink your press strategy, before you end up placing an ad for Alaskan oil drilling in Mother Jones.