re: The New York Time article quotes no Democrat.

That is an amazing claim, true only in the most Clintonian hair-splitting sense. First, it is very clear from the article that Rep. Boyda is concerned about her seat and is doing all that she can to distinguish her self from the national party (in stark contrast to 2006, when she was elected). She herself will give not quote as she obviously does not want to jeopardized her financial support from the national party should Hillary get the nomination. "House Democrats do not like to discuss the idea of reverse coattails for fear of giving it too much credence and angering the Clinton camp."

Chris Van Hollen is quoted as saying that a Hillary candidacy will give House candidates "a chance to emphasize their independence by breaking with the presidential nominee when they differ." The Clinton camp, showing how tone deaf they are to this issue, point out that Democrats gained a net of four House seats in her two New York Senate campaigns. Well, in case they haven't noticed, New York isn't exactly like Kansas (or Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, or Ohio -- the other locations where House Democrats are defending new seats in majority Republican districts).

But the most telling sentence in the entire article was ignored by War Room. "Democrats say they have not polled on the issue, though a private survey that surfaced this year found that the nomination of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama could cut into support for House Democrats in tough districts." Notice whose name is not on that list -- John Edwards. This should further reinforce the obvious that John Edwards is the most electable candidate among the three Democratic front runners (not to mention the entire field). Hopefully, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will come to see this soon.

This is just one more reason that Giuliani, if he gets the nomination, will go over with swing voters about like a turd in a punch bowl. And let's face it, the Republican primary voters are figuring this out. That's why hiz honnor is falling in the polls like a rock.

As I have said for some while, Huckabee is the guy that Democrats have to worry about. The only other marginally likable candidate that the others have is Mitt Romney, who makes John Kerry look like the very model of consistency.

Here's a no shit, Sherlock, stop the presses headline! Anyone with one small iota of political sense could have told you this eighteen months ago.

If you nominate Hillary or Obama, the Democratic party is tied to the same electoral strategy that failed them in 2000 and 2004 -- winning Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. If they nominate Edwards, they suddenly become competitive in a number of States that the other two front runners simply have to write off -- Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado, maybe Indiana, etc. Even if Edwards doesn't carry any of these States -- a far fetched notion -- at least the Republicans have to spend time and money defending what would otherwise be indisputably their turf. Plus, Edwards (especially Edwards/Obama) should be just as competitive, if not more so, than Hillary or Obama, in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

The only thing that I fear make Edward nomination unlikely is that it just makes too much sense for the Democrats to do the intelligent thing.

Not to burst the bubble on your Anglican/Episcopal tea party, but John Edwards grew up a Southern Baptist and is now a United Methodist.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week745/news.html

Sorry.

I'll assume you question is meant in good faith. The explanation is staggeringly obvious. The polls in which Hillary is ahead, or judged the most electable, are polls of Democratic voters.

The polls that show Edwards beating all Republican candidates are polls of ALL voters -- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Democrats like Hillary. No real surprise. Independents don't like her. No real surprise here, either. Independents really like John Edwards. This shouldn't be a surprise, but it does surprise some. Finally as to the few moderate Republicans left, Hilliary is anathema to them. Edwards might be someone that they can vote for.

In other words, Hillary had not support outside of hardcore Democrats. Edwards, and to a somewhat lesser extent Obama, have broad based appeal to all kinds of voters who have had a belly full of the Republican over the last eight years, but voted for George Bush. And this may seem paradoxical to those who really are politically aware in Democratic circles as Clinton is the most conservative and corporate of the Democrats running!! Ask a Democrat who the most conservative Democrat running for the Presidency is and many will (correctly) name Hillary. Almost all Republican and many swing voters will (incorrectly) instead tab her as the most liberal.

And remember, that populist Democrats ran very well in 2006, and no one is natively more populist than a trial lawyer. That is one reason that I think Edwards is so popular with swing voters right now. They are, thank God, for once in an anti-corporate, anti-authoritarian mood.

As to whether the Clinton campaign is involved in this incident, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. Will they send Shaheen packing like they did campaign staffer in Iowa who forwarded e-mail about Sen. Obama being a Muslim sleeper agent? I some how doubt it. But if she really wants to disassociate the campaign from the remark, that's the only way to do it.

I knew an old coach in junior high who used to say, "I can't hear what you're saying because what you're doing speaks so loudly!"