Actually, more than anyone else, the Democrats need to run on Policy, not electability.

The American people are fickle and capricious, but they are not stupid.

These polls are really just Q rating judgments, who have I heard of, how do I feel about them personally.

People Like Giuliani because, well, they heard of him, and David Letterman and Howard Sterns seemed happy enough with them when they had heard about him (2001)so why not. The same is true for Clinton, they've heard of her, and Howard and Letterman are not big fans, so why should they be.

If the Democrat (whoever it is) stands up and puts forth strong decisive policy statements, they will draw attention, and their electability will be based on their strong policies. People like strong policies, they want someone who will say, these are the things I will do. They are cautious when people say we'll figure that out later.

Underestimating the American people is what the Democrats have been doing for years, worrying too much about appearance, and not enough about substance. Republicans worry about appearance too, but that's because their substance is less attractive. On appearance Republicans come off as John Wayne, and Democrats come off Gene Autry. Both are movie cowboys, but only one is believable as the leader of men.

Democrats need to take a lesson from the current Al Gore (and no, he's not running unless it's as an independent) and speak their minds on policy. The electability will come later.

Hillary is electable, just not if she is running as Dale Evans.

Take Parliamentary governments where the leader of the country is not determined by an actual election, but by negotiations among the various parliamentarians. Sure if there is a clear majority the people can pretend that they voted in a Prime minister, but really they just voted for their local representative, and if their representative's party get the plurality of votes, a coalition of minorities can undue the will of the people.

The Electoral College has its quirks, but at least it is theoretically more direct (as the electors only have one job and that is to cast the vote of their state) than parliamentarianism.

Bloomberg isn't an option just because he's rich, that's just an issue of funding, as the fictional Duke Phillips (from the Critic) once said, "I'm a billionaire, so the only person that can bribe me is a gazillionaire). The idea of a man who can opt not to take money from pharma, oil, or trial lawyers is interesting to Americans, though we have a history of being distasteful of people buying elections with their own money as well.

The lineage of Mr. Bush and Ms. Clinton may seem dynastic, however the younger Bush is about as different from his Father as any politician may be, and Ms. Clinton has earned her stripes in the senate in spite of her husband’s legacy. Likewise, Mr. Bush cannot run again, due to term limits, and there is no guarantee Ms. Clinton will get her parties nod either, Such determinations again are not decided by the will of the people in parliamentary governments but by the will of their representatives. A popular politician can still lose their parties leadership if they are unpopular enough among the people who actually vote for office.

There are numerous problems with American Democracy, none of which are made better or worse by the options currently in use elsewhere.

I mean really, let's face it, anybody seeking this office woke up one morning and said, "You know what? I should be in charge. I am smarter than everyone else, and really I am the best person in the world to have control of nuclear weapons."

Having a big personal bank just means that he'll never have to weigh his personal beliefs against his ability to raise money.

When pro-business politicians take money from pro-business groups, there is no conflict, when pro-union politicians take money from pro-union groups there is no conflict. However when and individual politician takes money from an individual business or organization that may have conflicts with some ideals the politician holds, then a conflict emerges.

Mike Bloomberg, will no doubt happily take money from various free trade lobbyists as he believes in the issue, however when Halliburton hands him a cheque he has the option to politely refuse as he doesn't need the money and the possible conflict of interest subtracts the value of the money offered. Most other politicians can't be so choosey. Likewise if Mike does take money from a company that is less than reputable, he does not need to fear their withdrawal of support simply because he votes against them. As Willie Brown once said "If you can't take a man's money and vote against him, you have no business in politics."

Unfortunately fear of loss of future funds causes many politicians to show they do not belong in politics. And that's the advantage of the gentleman politician in the modern body politic.