More like you see people having the balls to stand up to the KKK as being pussies. They weren't, and they aren't to blame for what the post-baby boom generation voted into the Whitehouse.

Semi tongue in cheek.

Apart from policy, here is what I have noticed in the three camps.

For five years (2001 to 2006) America had a president who was above criticism.

To criticise Bush in that period was to be called a hater. Heck, "Bush-hater" is still a rightwing talking point.

Now, when the chips were down for Hillary what did we have? Yep, the guys who didn't like her were called sexists and the women were called self-haters. Yep, the label "Hater" for anyone who opposed your candidate is well in place.

Now the same ugly tendency is seen to some extent in Obama's camp. This is the basis of the Archie Bunker mentality argument - if you didn't vote for Obama you are a racist, or if you are black and you happened to like Hillary, you are a self-hating black person.

Evidently if you are black and female you just cannot win.

Either way, I just wouldn't want a president who I would not be free to criticise for fear of being labeled a "Hater."

Seriously, it wasn't that long ago when the narrative on the elections was a sure bet win for Hillary. Sure, the Republicans were selling it as a scare story, but it was the expectation promoted in the press.

Iowa happened, Hillary came third, and she was still termed as being ahead of Edwards, who came second. Edwards coming second there prompted a "Oh well he may as well quit" in fact.

And people tell me Hillary has a rotten press.

You mean like when Hillary was on Wal-Mart's famously anti-feminist anti-union board for six years?

It is the opposite.

Hillary will lose if she ends up running. Why?

Gore and Kerry were both "Centrist" candidates when they ran, and thus failed to stir the base. They basically ran to the right and then were shocked when the rightwing shockingly voted for a rightwinger, and the left either didn't vote for voted for a third party.

You still hear the howls of the Democrat faithful over that one, and you still note no real changed behaviour by the Democratic Party (Which is to say that the Dems, as a party are sort of thick.)

Had they run to the left, well, Gore would have won by a large enough margin to have not have the elections stolen, and Kerry would have stood a chance.

On paper and rhetoric, Hillary is the most "Centrist" of the candidates running. Obama is not all that liberal, but he is further to the left than former Wal-Mart board member, former partner in a union busting law firm Hillary Clinton.

Further, whatever charisma Hillary has, she is actively disliked by large swathes of America's population.

What Obama has is charisma. Much like Bill could rally the base by just being sort of a likeable rogue, but of course, like all centrist "Unifiers" on substance he is lacking. He could win, he could lose, it depends on how far his charisma can carry him. Don't expect much of a revolution though.

Which leaves us Edwards. Edwards is of the demographic most likely to be president (Because the South somehow got the impression that losing the civil war gave them the right to pick America's presidents), he is the most leftwing of the frontrunners, and he is the one that has actually shaped the debates.

He isn't all that much more charasmatic than Hillary, but of the three he is the most grounded on "base" issues, and the liberal base is hungry for a presidential candidate that actually isn't embarassed to be a liberal. The liberal base hasn't seen that since FDR saved America from mass starvation.

Contrast this with the Republicans, who have won five out of seven of the past presidential elections by playing to their base. Bush is not a charasmatic president (Whatever the press says) nor was his father but both played to the Republican base and it was highly successful. The Democrats need to start learning from their losses here.

When is the last time the Democrats actually ran a classic Democrat populist?

You know when?

FDR - ranked as one of the best US presidents in American history.

So far as I am aware Tom Tomorrow does not reflect the views of Salon - Salon just pays him for the right to run his cartoon, what actually goes into it is up to him, within reason.

For those arguing about how the venom being directed at Hillary is unusual, umm, remember the Swift Boat vets? How about Bill being accused of being a rapist, murderer and fraudster? And hey, lets not forget what was done to Gore over the internet!

The venom directed at Hillary? You ain't seen nothing yet.

The more I look at the US, the more it becomes clear that you need Edwards. You need someone that will drag America back to the left because the free market nuts are heading you for a depression, and neither Hillary, nor Obama are willing to take firm enough policy stances to reverse that slide.

Aww, your sour grapes sound so much like you might just be one of those talking heads.

You don't likey when the mean nasty blogger mocks you do you?

I thought it was a reference to "Hot Coffee."

Look it up.

It's closer to 30% - and the idiots who support a bunch who managed to take Bill's record surplus and turn it into a record deficit, turn America into a state which engages in torture, to take FEMA and turn it into its own personal disaster zone, who have failed America on every single measurable level, deserve ridicule.