Well it looks like Sen. Obama is tossing his hat in the ring also. I wonder what Hillary was doing this morning?

Pikcing it up and trying it on?

Yep Doc. The Historian in me says Obama has a time to wait. So does Hillary---or never. Do you agree that Edwards has a chance or that someone will come from the back (like the peanut farmer), and snatch it?

Do you agree that Edwards has a chance or that someone will come from the back (like the peanut farmer), and snatch it?

Given that the nominee has to please the base, and the base is very liberal, I think Edwards has a great chance. For the nomination. But not the election. I agree, Obama is too new. But then I think this is just to get his name out there so that in 4 years he will be a front runner.

And it could be a governor who gets it. History is on their side.

"Given that the nominee has to please the base, and the base is very liberal, I think Edwards has a great chance"

I think you can balance that with the fact that he couldn't even win an election in his own state. I don't think Edwards is even an issue if the race has Hillary or Obama in in it.

I think you can balance that with the fact that he couldn't even win an election in his own state. I don't think Edwards is even an issue if the race has Hillary or Obama in in it.

Remember 84.

I don't think Edwards or Obama has any chance, but that's just me.  Obama is the current "pretty face" of the democratic party, and that will come off soon.

"Remember 84."

And Mondale only won one state, and then Reagan was within 4000 votes of winning all 50. Don't get me wrong. I won't mind a bit if the Dems send someone who can't possibly win from their primaries. My opinion is, if you have what it takes to win the Dem primaries, you can't win the national election.

And Mondale only won one state, and then Reagan was within 4000 votes of winning all 50. Don't get me wrong.

Sorry, I see you misuderstood me. I dont think Edwards has a chance in hell of winning the election. just getting the nomination. IN 84, Mondale the losing VP 4 years earlier, ran as the candidate, and as you pointed out, was smeared. The best thing the democrats could do is come up with some new blood. But I am not going to bet they will. Hillary, Edwards, and Kerry (and gore but he says he is not running) are losers. Try a Vilsak (no record) or Richardson (no criminal record - rare for the administration he served in)are new blood.

My opinion is, if you have what it takes to win the Dem primaries, you can't win the national election.

IN that we agree. But then the Republicans can hand it to them by doing the same thing as the democrats do.

Yeah, I misunderstood. Again I think the primary thing comes into play. I think the reason they have to go with these dog candidates is they have so little that would actually WIN in the primaries. In all honesty, we don't end up with many beauty queens ourself. I guess they figure name recognition is better than nothing.

Clinton and Bush both defy that. No one knew them before they started running. The difference is, in the end, conservative dogma is more appealing to more people than liberal dogma. Down deep at a gut level, people are self serving, and only want to be liberal to the point that it doesn't hurt their kids and their parents and their lives. The average blue-flame democrat, like Obama or Edwards, is a serious threat, imho.

Clinton was a good old boy. That's what they need, an elitist liberal disguised as a commoner. None of the big names on the dem side really fit the bill.