The problem of Edwards is not his money, but the way that he spends his money. Kennedy was rich, but he had a tough man image and his discourse wasn´t aimed AT the poor. Not only most people sees Edwards was a sissy, but also as a hypocrite joke. And few people forgets that he flip-flops so much that makes Mitt Romney looks like a principled guy.

The problem of Kerry is that at the time everyone were so blinded by Bush hate that no one noted his deficiencies. Bruce Bartlett(A conservative critic of Bush) complained at the time that no one knew what Kerry had done in more than a decade on the Senate.

Few people remembers 1988, when the country was plagued by recession in rural areas and Michael Dukakis began the race with a 17% advantage on polls.

And you are not getting the problem: if you take the eight divisions defined by the Census, Kerry didn´t won ANY state on three of them, while winning only two(That´s because Maryland and Delaware are not exactly southern states) on another and one on other. And if you take the map by counties, you´ll have a map painted by red and a few dots on blue. Worse, if you take out of the map Black and Latino counties and a few liberal enclaves on the west, there is few things there,

If the Democrats wants to win, they should fight their gap on the less povoated areas. And I don´t think that urban candidates are the best option of doing that.

If the matter is principles, you have Kucinich and Gravel. If the matter is electability, there is Richardson. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have neither.

"We have tasers, pepper spray and a wide, wide assortment of nonlethal self-defense tools."

Tasers and pepper sprays are torture tools, not self-defense. They have low range and they have no use against most thugs. Guns are lethal weapons, but you don´t have to shoot someone to defend yourself.

"Can someone please explain to me the difference between a conservative Democrat and a Republican?"

Do you prefer James Inhofe instead of David Boren? And considering that *several* so called Liberal Democrats voted for the Iraq War I don´t see the issue here...

The problem of the article is that the author forgets that many Liberal strongholds(Like Las Vegas and Denver) were also made possible because of A/C.

I live in Southeastern Brazil, where you have wet summers and a soft climate so most people have neither air conditioning and heating. But I understand people that like one because sometimes I struggle to sleep because I face extreme variations of temperature... Sometimes is to warm to sleep, other times is too cold... ;-)

"To me, the best analogy is really '92 with Bill Clinton, who, in many ways, was a more flawed candidate than Barack Obama. Certainly, on personal issues. And if you remember that year's Republican convention, the campaign was really an attack on Clinton's inexperience, and how he didn't have proper family values and what have you, and that approach didn't work because people were very worried about the direction of the country"

Nope. Bill Clinton was a three term governor, former state attourney general and Chairman of the National Governor's Association. Surely that any accusation of inexperience would not sound as convincing. On the other record Obama has no administrative experience.

- If the author is willing to do so, well, I can send him a Fiat Siena if he sends me enough money to do so.

- The ethanol program beggan as a subsidized one, but it´s something auto-sufficient now. The problem is that we are talking about a country with abundant water and no snow(In most of the US it´s the contrary!). I don´t think that it would have enough space to supply US needs because even considering Brazil´s low energy consumption the space required by these sugarcane belts are enormous.

- I think that the problem is not the sugarcane people of Florida, but the Corn lobby of the midwest.

"Instead of running that incredibly stupid ad about McCain and houses, why isn't Obama running ads with the negative words Republicans have said about McCain"

Simple. McCain was attacked for not being Republican enough and for supporting immigrants. Remembering Hispanics that McCain fought the Xenophic Aisle of its own party to pass immigration reform is going to help him. In a year that Republican became a toxic word McCain is a viable candidate because most people thinks that he is not really Republican.

Using the negative words that Republicans have said about McCain is going to help him.

Palin is not a Bushite. She probally has more in common with Napolitano and Sebelius than with Bush. She even refused to sell a unprofitable state owned dairy business. And she has the image of reformer in a state where politics stinks. She means more change than a guy that became senator in 1972.

Complaining about identity politics considering that the last contenders to the presidential nomination had their main assets as being black and female is not intelligent. Cmon, most people couldn´t name a better reason to vote for Hillary besides her gender.

And no one expects a vice president that knows foreign policy or whatever. In fact, having a total inexperienced guy as president and a very experienced guy as vice president is REALLY frightening.

Palin strategically is a better bet than Biden. She is a lifelong member of the NRA and a hunter so she gets the support of gunowners and sportsman. On the other hand, that little haired guy that wrote the Assault Rifle Ban can´t help Obama with these guys.

And no one expects experience from the VP. And yes, considering what I´m reading about Palin I´m beginning to think that Democrats deserve to lose.