shows Iowa as a three-way tie - Obama, Clinton and Edwards.  My read on Iowa is that it's a "must win" for Edwards; if he loses there, he's out.  I would also say that if Clinton wins Iowa, she's going to win the nomination, given that she's leading in pretty much every other state (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Michigan...).  Anyway, the bottom line right now is that Clinton is the clear frontrunner, with Obama in second and Edwards in third.  Of course, a lot can change between now and January 2008 -- just look at what happened four years ago! -- but to argue that Edwards is the frontrunner NOW is not correct at all.

this time 4 years ago- but was he really the frontrunner?

and Wes Clark arguably in second place.  Kerry and Edwards were nowhere, pretty much.  A month later, all had changed.

This could be a really unusual election as far as Iowa's impact goes.  It is conceivable that New Hampshire could even hold its primary as early as Dec. 2007 -- this year -- although I am reading now that Jan. 8th is a possibility (if Michigan moves its vote up to Jan. 15th) . . .  http://unionleader.c...

Throw into the mix a potential Al Gore candidacy, and the statistical models are really going to be thrown for a loop.

Really hard to say how things will pan out at this stage.

If anyone else talks about the "potential Al Gore candidacy" I'm going to ram my head into the wall for an hour. The man has said in about 193 interviews that he's absolutely not running for President.

Al Gore is no fool. With Hillary at almost 50 percent Nationally and it looks like a Democratic win in Nov. '08, there is no reason to get in the race.

But die hards and dreamers will always be around, just have to ignore them. At least this time Wes Clark was not mentioned.

In reference to Hilary's near 50% numbers -- you may remember George Allen was polling at almost 50% four months before the 2006 election.  Good thing we didn't waste our time and energy in finding a candidate to run against him with his nearly invincible poll numbers. 

When Hilary starts hitting the low 50s in national polls performing at the same level as "generic Democratic candidate" then we can start talking about the inevitable.

is ahead of the entire field in some state primary polls (Michigan for example)--and the guy isn't even run.  So dismissing the possibility out of hand is a little odd.

Especially when you consider that Gore says "he has no INTENTION of running" in those 193 interviews.  There's a difference between "absolutely not running" and "no intention".

Maybe you've been told something by the Gore family that I haven't, but I think this is a factor that is still very much within the realm of the possible.  We're still at least 4 months away from the first primary or caucus.

Hillary 30
Edwards 23
Obama  19

After months of nipping at the heels of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards among likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has made a move to the top of the heap in the race for her party's presidential nomination, a new NewsMax/Zogby telephone poll shows.

Clinton's move up in Iowa replicates what she has done nationally, building a powerhouse campaign and benefiting in part from the positive opinions of her husband, the survey shows.

Clinton leads with 30% support, followed by Edwards at 23% and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama at 19%. She added six points to her column since the last Zogby Iowa polling in May, while Edwards and Obama have each lost three points during the same time period.

The Zogby telephone survey was conducted August. 17-19, 2007, and included 503 likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

http://www.newsmax.c...