The only states you guys are down to challenging me on are Ohio, North Dakota, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia.

Sorry you're wrong and here's why he'll take Virginia: blacks and rich, educated white voters. Anyone who doesn't think he's taking this is nuts. Particularly with Webb campaigning for him.

Colorado and Nevada: Why do you think he was so happy to get the Richardson endorsement. Richardson's clearly the VP choice which is why Clinton and her people are so pissed at him. They know with Richardson he takes the West. Sure some of you guys might be mad, but the people who think Latinos are going to vote against the first Latino president are as insane as those who didn't think blacks would ultimately come around to Obama.

North Dakota: Not only would he take it, but I didn't give him Kansas or Nebraska, which he'll also take. Ask Sebelius. Frankly I purposefully didn't give him two states he'll take in the Great Plains just so people wouldn't jump on me. So not only am I not taking that one away, but ratchet it up by another state or two.

Ohio: I'll give you. But that one's always a battleground. What's new? He's in the same position every successful president for the past 40 years has been in. And if Rendell will really campaign for him in PA, switch those two around.

The point is you guys are basically down to griping over one state. He's clearly electable.

That's what a few people are still underestimating. It's the same reason the Republicans could run Reagan twice and get away with it.

When you see a sea-change like this you have to take advantage of it by building your base not just holding it. Otherwise your opponents move into your space and take it over.

Obama builds the base, Clinton holds it. People who are losing their jobs in Michigan or PA might vote for Clinton over Obama on the likes of Pastorgate. But these people are really hurting. They're not going to vote for McCain, who says he doesn't understand the economy and has already told them he does not intend to use "big government" to intervene for them at all on housing or jobs, over McCain based on what you guys label the "cement overcoat."

The polls show it, the votes show it, but some people just won't believe him. Pastorgate didn't kill Obama any more than Bimbogate killed Bill Clinton going into the election or "where's the beef?" killed Reagan. It's issues that matter. Throw in the fact Obama brings in tens of millions of new voters to offset whatever he loses and it's just not the bad situation some make it out to be.

Ask him if he'll take Attorney General. Secretary of Labor? There's a lot of key positions Edwards could still hold in any administration dealing with the issues he cares about. Many of us pointed out he was more likely to be interested in something like this where he could work on the issues he cares about, like poverty. Edwards has hinted at it himself. So I'm not daunted.

Time magazine had a discussion similar to ours in the first Richardson thread and came to the same conclusion we did: Obama could easily win.

Here's how: Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Hawaii.

The argument that he's not electable, let alone that he's somehow less electable than her, just isn't true. Now people can debate over the states, but her map is WAY more precarious than this. She has to win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. He just needs one.

Of those these are (were assuming Edwards really won't take it) my top 5:

1.) Richardson

2.) Webb

3.) Edwards

4.) Sebelius

5.) Casey

Have to agree with the earlier poster though, in order to win PA Bob Casey might be moving way up on that list. Particularly since the electoral math shows Obama would probably need PA, if he doesn't get OH or FL. So Casey's moving up. Edwards down, only because he says he won't do it. Sebelius who is the best governor in the country, and a woman, stays on my list. I still think through sheer competence she would help pull a lot of female voters back to Obama. Richarson helps you take the West. Webb strong military credentials and you secure Virginia and Maryland (which think Obama gets anyway, but why not be sure.)

Ed Rendell would be good too, but he runs off too much at the mouth. Wes Clark's a disaster, after 2004 I wouldn't trust him to run for anything.

But it's early. Hillary's not dead yet, and don't count her out. First beat her, then VP nominees.

I know, unfair, screams of why, why, why?

She only had 2, maybe 3 other viable options and burned bridges with all of them or they won't do it. They were:

1.) Edwards

2.) Richardson

3.) Webb

Edwards said no. Whatever chance she had of getting Richardson on the ticket and swinging the West is pretty much gone after the hatchet job they've tried to do on him. Webb doesn't make as much sense, because she already gets blue-collar workers and national security is not a perceived weakness of hers. (I happen to think it, in reality, is, but have to admit the perception is it's not.)

So what other option does she have other than taking Obama? However, if she were to pull an upset I'm betting at the end of the day her supporters would come around. Plus they could come on boards like this and, rightfully, mock all of us for having counted her out in the first place.

That's all I have to say. If Hillary wins, at this point, it will be because blue collar workers aren't ready for a black president.