Or are they so confident, even now, that their racist followers will put them over the top?

Taylor Marsh doesn't explicitly say that, though, personally, I don't think the Southern Strategy is anywhere near dead.

She seems to think that Obama is naively unprepared for what will hit him if he should become the candidate: the full-force of the VRWC and RWNM. She may be right. Others have also noted that he seems to think that playing nice will make others want to play nice, too. That may be true globally, but I don't think it is domestically. The GOP has given not a single clue that they would like to play nice.

In this one area, Hillary probably is better prepared than most of the other candidates for the battle ahead. That doesn't mean she's my first choice (though if she's the candidate, she's got my vote), just that she's seen it all first-hand and knows what is ahead.

Absent a Gore campaign, I'd love to see some combination of Dodd and Edwards on the ticket, but I'm probably being naive in that wish. Still, they are both problem-solvers, good communicators (Finally!), and would complement each other with their liberal (Dodd) and populist (Edwards) views. They both work hard and are well-prepared. Unfortunately, neither is getting decent media coverage... since that would mean forgetting about the horse race long enough to write about some substance. Fat chance!

And yet, I keep reminding myself that this is the most wide-open election we've seen (or at least that I've seen) in many years. No votes have been cast, no caucuses waged. Yet. And Edwards is still very competitive in Iowa.

Insult you was not my intention (tho' it was yours), just a little feedback about why you don't get the responses you seem to desire so much.

I won't bother you with any more, since you really are not interested... except in trading insults, which is not my stock in trade.

I don't think it's in the pitcher tonight, but perhaps tomorrow, with a new day. I appreciate the thought, though.

[Cracker?! Moi?]

Cocktailhag, we agree on that, too. And I think it was one of the points that Taylor Marsh was definitely trying to make.

Bottom line is that any one of the Democrats would be better than any one of the Republicans running. I remind myself of that, and of those (likely) imminent SCOTUS nominations.

[Speaking of which... SCOTUS is where I really think that Hillary Clinton could make the contribution for which she is intended. All of the attributes that draw such criticism to her, that cautious judiciousness, for example, would be appropriate there.]

Your point about the lagging Southern Strategy is a good one, too. It may not be dead yet, but it's not as strong or prevalent as it once was.

And would your grandmother have bought that line?

This one does not.

There was another poll (I'll look for the link) that demonstrated Edwards' significant lead over the other Democratic candidates when matched up against any of the Republican candidates.

That does seem pretty significant, in the context of considering all of the negatives and positives. Again, though, he's not getting much coverage, which is less of a disadvantage in Iowa, and maybe NH, but will be an obstacle later on. (Unless Iowa and NH give him some coverage.)

I know I will. And, just in case no one has told you so today, you are a gentleman, and wrapped perfectly.

Cocktailhag... Sorry, I meant something else... that Hillary would herself be a good choice as a nominee for SCOTUS. [I should have been less succinct.] Given her bipartisan work in the Senate, I think she could actually get through the confirmation process without too much trouble. No more campaigning. A position for life. (What could be wrong with that?) And... Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not like being the only woman on the Court, and who can blame her?

And that's what I was really referring to when I mentioned Hillary's cautious judiciousness. She gets criticized for being too moderate, and for seeking consensus. On the Court it would be a welcome trait... especially now that O'Connor is gone.

I found that link (by Miles Mogulescu, at HuffPo) about Edwards' place in the polls compared with the other Democrats in match-ups vs. the Republicans:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/democrats-need-john-edwar_b_77468.html

And, now he's also posted Part 2:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/democrats-need-john-edwar_b_77683.html

He makes a good case for Edwards, whom I already liked in any case. That, combined with Dodd's leadership on the Constitutional issues is why I'd like to see a ticket with the two of them, in any order.

Of course, as I already mentioned, neither one of them gets much traction with the press, for reasons already discussed in an earlier thread: they threaten the M$M's self-protective agenda. Together, they would make quite a team, though.

Thanks, Dirigo, but you're wasting your time.

...about Hillary on the SCOTUS. Now, I can call it a night.

Thanks for the discussion, Cocktailhag & Gwool. I have to work tomorrow.

We've had a couple of exchanges in Glenn Greenwald's comment threads recently about how much more likely sports writers are to be fair... compared to those in the M$M currently assigned to cover politics.

Joan, given your own intense interest in sports, or at least in baseball, maybe you could recruit a few sports writers to cover this election season? Think of it as a pilot experiment... but one that could eventually effect a real (and positive) change on political news coverage.

Of course, we'd have to compare and contrast, critique, etc.... but my hunch is that we'd actually have less horse race coverage, and quite a bit more substance.

If you write back to J. M. Greysky, please tell him (?) that he is missed.