Hillary is ahead because people just know who she is because she's a former first lady and has always been in the public spotlight. I think it'll be a tug of war between Hillary and Obama supporters in the North and Edwards supporters in the South so (pending any scandal or surprise candidacy) Dems choose Clark or Richardson. And primary voters are always more left or right than traditional voters especially in recent years so that can be expected.

I remember 2004, one of the main story lines of that race around 2003 and 2002 was that if Gore did not run then it'll be arace about the future and about 2000. If Gore did run, the primary race would be how the rest of the feild is not Gore. The ironic footnote to this was Lieberman was well ahead of the rest of the pack, basically because he was the vp candidate in 2000. And 2000 was the year of the election debacle.  As I recall, Lieberman did not get the nomination. But the public did know him through th 2000 election debacle.  People don't pay enough attention to politics.  Infact for the hits this site gets, it's relatively obscure to the general public. It's still way too early. Lets shut down this website, take a break and come back in December and then play the parlor game. I bet you we'll be talking about a whole new race.

Things are very different than they were before the 04 election.  A year and a half out Bush was still very popular, this time we have clear candidates unlike then.  This time we have huge fundraising operations gearing up, this time we aren't waiting for Gore to decide if he will run (ok so we are still waiting but even if he gets in he is at 11% in the polls  putting him in 4th or 5th place). You say that we should come back to this in December... I think it's obvious that this election could be close to being decided by this summer. Two VERY different election cycles. 

I've been impressed first of all that this blog has been a neutral source for information on the primary campaigns.  Not only that but I think you have done a good job in this post as well as in many others showing that the conventional wisdom on Hillary is wrong. The polling is clear that Hillary has the best chance of beating a Republican.  We all know that she has a crack campaign team with folks like Mike Henry, Paul Begala, Madeline Albright and ... we know she isn't going to take a punch and fall down like Kerry... we know that she has been an effective Senator from NY... she might be too pragmatic but no one has doubt her true liberal credentials...
So I think most of us can agree on these things... but what is stopping you from supporting her?

I will definitely say that I was very impressed with Hillary Clinton when I met her in person a few months ago.  Of course, I was also very impressed with Obama when I met HIM during the Kaine campaign.  John Edwards blew the doors of the DNC meeting a few weeks ago.  And Bill Richardson used to be my boss - well, a few levels up, anyway! - when I worked at the Energy Department.  Then there's Wes Clark, who I helped to "draft" in 2003.  Anyway, we'll see...

Come on, now.  The election is a year and a half away.  Even the primaries are months away.  How about asking all those people saying they'll vote for Hillary what positions of hers they particularly like?  Except for the ones who follow politics all the time you won't find most of them even knowing the difference between the various candidates.  They choose her because of her name recognition as opposed to the other candidates whom they know little about.  Instead of playing into the media's rush toward premature annointing of front-runners shouldn't we be taking every opportunity to criticize it?

Don't tell you how a candidate will perform in a presidential election with an electoral college. 

In order to put the poll numbers in context there needs to be some granularity at the state level.

The party numbers may also tell you who can win the party nomination,  but they don't tell you much about the 20% of the electorate that is not affiliated and tilts the balance of elections.

Lets skip forward to next December and January. There will be only three serious candidates at that time. Clinton, Obama and John Edwards.

I would like to hear some speculation on which of these candidates would benefit from the dropping out of any of the non-contenders and to what extent.

Consider me very unconvinced.

If the netroots can do any one thing, it ought to be forcing the eventual nominee to really earn his/her support from the people. We need to have a debate in this country of what kind of nation and polity we are and what kind we want to be. When nominations are clinched by somene just sucking up the money primary and winning in Iowa and New Hampshire to pretty much seal the pundity primaries, we the people are ill-served, and we never get to see what really makes these people tick.

The results of an unchallenged George W Bush in 2000 are plain enough to see. Gore, too -- he was not ready for the smears he received against Bush, and ran an awful campaign. Same in 2004 with Kerry.

We need to have a serious debate about America's place in the world; our commitment to the rule of law, constitutionalism, and the international system; our obligation to our fellow citizens, whether it be health care or our New Orleans diaspora; and how to safeguard the American dream and promise in an age of uncertainty and globalization. This conversation will not happen if Clinton or Obama just suck up all the money and/or win based on our vapid television media culture.

We, the netroots, have to force this conversation, and ask tough questions of all these peoople, not just fall into the conventional horserace BS.

Just my $.02.

The netroots are much bigger, broader, and more mainstream than they were in the 2004 election.  It's a factor to be weighed in considering this question of who will be the frontrunner.  It would be even more helpful if we could get away from this new fad of earlier and earlier primaries and went to something like regional primaries but for the old traditional early ones like Iowa and New Hampshire.

for all of this speculation - primaries are eleven months away and in poliitcs, a week is a lifetime, never mind eleven months.

Ane the primary system always produces surprises - look at 2004 when Kerry was at 5 percent in Iowa a six weeks before the caucus and he won - with Edwards coming in a surprising second.

Hillary, as the front runner, has the most to lose and least to gain over the next eleven months.  I am really torn over her candidacy - I am not sure she can ultimatly win a general election, however, she by far has the most experienced campaign team that has the skill set and experience to run a general election campaign.  This is a huge issue for me - which candidate can run a competent general election campaign?  Kerry, in 2004, won the nomnation but began putting general election plan together after the primaries.  It was way too late and it showed in the fall of 2004. 

And if it is a given that Hillary or any other Dem can carry all the states carried by Kerry in 2004, what additional states can she carry to get to the 270 electoral votes she would need to win?  I know this is an issue for any Dem nominee but with Hil's baggage, and her suitcases are packed, would we better off with someone else as a nominee in attempt to pick up states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico and Ohio - thses will be the battleground states in 2008.

I want to WIN in 2008 and I want to make sure I/we nomintae nominate someone who can win.

For all of us here, please, tell us what specific items are in her suitcases. 

But wait!!! --

  ** First please skip all the politically motivated, Republican, spin machine-initiated lies over all these years. 

  ** Okay done that, now eliminate the Limbaugh/Hannity mysogynistic innuendos and slurs.

http://en.wikipedia....
...During her time as First Lady, Clinton was also the subject of official investigations regarding firings in the White House travel office, the circumstances of White House counsel Vince Foster's death, and questionable use of FBI background files. In none of these cases was Clinton ever officially charged with any wrongdoing.

Hillary has it all. The money and Machine will get her the Primary and the General Election. I believe she has more love support then hate support. The Republicans will not vote since they hate the Clintons and will not like their own candidate. The Clintons learned too much after Bill lost AR, then won again. In '92 they built a response team and it came out in full force with the Geffan remarks. All the skeletons are out of the closet and I do not think Bill created any new ones since he is out of office.
Who will it be in '08? Why Hillary against Romney. She will walk away with the popular and the electorial, with the women, black and young vote and about 44 percent of the male vote.
Edwards stood a chance with Hillary, but with Obama, it boils down to Obama and Hillary and Edwards will be out with not enough money, even though he could beat any Republican candidate.
Obama got hammered with the Geffan remarks, but it may have been a learning curve for him, which will make the race closer if he has learned. But the machine along with the money will win.

GOP has never nominated a pro-choice candidate for president ever since that's been an issue (if he genuinely is pro-choice) and although Romney has a healthcare reform merit badge, he lacks the foreign policy experience the GOP will be all about in '08. I say McCain gets the nomination. I honestly don't see any other Republican getting it at this point.

is washed up. Too far all over the spectrum. And when the surge fails, he will be blamed for guiding Bush in the wrong direction. Bush will make him the fall guy again.

Romney will convince the ultra conservatives he is a real conservative. He is headed in that direction with the judges he says he will pick. The anti-choice will be won in the courts, not by some one saying they are anti-choice, but picks middle of the road judges.

Romney will get that message across and win the nomination.

Here's how Media Matters weighs in on the "feud."  Seems it was pretty contrived. 

http://mediamatters....

I know this is a blog for progressives, and Hillary has taken positions more from the center than from the left. But as a Democrat who has seen too many losses when we field candidates from the left, and seen that we win when our candidates come from the center, I could not be more confortable with Hillary Clinton as our candidate for tne next Presidential contest. Nobody wants us to win the Presidency more than me. None of the other party's candidates will hold the coalition they need to prevail in a presidential election.

And there are those who think Hillary can't win, for whatever their reasons.

Well, in the Webb contest it was said early that "nobody can beat George Allen." Guess what? The naysayers were all wrong. And the naysayers are wrong about Senator Clinton! From the very beginning, the strategic genius on Jim Webb's campaign was Professor Steve Jarding of the Harvard University faculty. He asked the key question on Chris Matthews' Hardball last month, and it must weigh heavily on the mind of every remaining naysayer, so I repeat it hear for your consideration:

Just who do you think can beat her?

I rest my case. Go Hillary.........

Not true.  This is a blog for any and all Democrats, independents, and even liberal/moderate Republicans.  The purpose of this blog is to elect Democrats, and also to push Progressivism.  Personally, I consider myself a Jim Webb Democrat or a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive (not "progressive" as a synomym for "liberal," by the way), but that's just me.  Others on this site have other political ideologies, and that's great.  But the bottom line is that it's an incorrect statement to say that "this is a blog for progressives."  It's a community blog, and a community is never monolothic (thank goodness!).

I think your post is very reality based.  And I'd respect Steve Jarding's assessment on Hillary!