I suppose it was too much to hope for as Edwards has been written off, but in many polls I've seen, Edwards is the most consistently strong candidate against whichever candidate the Republicans decide is the least of a dozen evils.

I agree that Edwards is the most electable in a general election, but he isn't looking good in the primary. If he fails to gain traction in his home territory of South Carolina, I really hope he will do the tactically correct thing and bow out before Super Tuesday. Right now he and Obama are splitting the "Change" vote and pushing HRC toward victory in the primary.

Rudy's tough-guy act would make all 3 of them weak. One of the GOP's main tactics is to make the Democrats seem emasculated (ironically Hillary seems immune to that) and people fall for his macho schtick. McCain is too old to project that image and the others have their own image problems. I suppose that's why he was leading the polls awhile back, I am relieved he seems to be on the way out.

Please....Giuliani has more baggage than a Sherpa en route to the summit of Mt. Everest

A rule that ought to rank just under Murphy's Law and the Peter Principle: Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to lose elections they should win.

Does Hillary plan to run on "Ready to Be a Bureaucrat" in the general election? Only Romney would be duller, and we should factor in the great slime machine with HRC's name on it.

Obama has strong possibilities against all of them -- he's the cleanest break with the past categories, esp. the internecine Boomer war, and has the broadest cross-party and independent appeal.

And while we're at it, none of the Dems have strong foreign policy experience; they will all have to learn it. Edwards served 6 years in the Senate. And I'm still scratching my head at Hillary's fuzzy math of 35 years -- she has held elective office for what, 8 years? Compared to Obama's 12?

quit with the worry so much about BS...Oh Guliani will do this and Romney will do that s we have to counter with this and blah blah blah.

Look, it is like dating a girl (I know this might be hard for some political junkies to imagine). What attracts people is when you are yourself. Just be yourself.

Democrats need to figure that out. Stop worrying about what the GOP will say. You cant lead if you are scared to just be yourself.

Be Democrats...dont be scared

McCain is the GOP's only shot, and then, only against Hillary. In any other matchup, any of our three destroy anyone on the GOP side. People who should know better still think McCain has some integrity left; and after the media kisses his wrinkled 'maverick' ass all summer and fall, that won't change. 40 percent of the country and 100 percent of the press already hates HRC; but against ridiculous foofs like Mitt, Huck, Rudy or Fred, it won't matter.

Why not go with Kucinich? At least in theory? Match him up against Huckabee. The energetic Dennis who worked his way up from a family that never owned a home. Who gives nothing to corporate lobbyists. Huckabee's anti-boardroom jabs would be useless. And Dennis is funny, too: "I'm a member of congress, but not that kind of a member of Congress" about how it would have been inappropriate for him and Elizeabeth to show their feelings for each other when they first met...

Or against McCain. McCain pro-war, Dennis pro-peace, so that might be tough if McCain plays the "surrender" card well. Unless the people are fed up enough with Iraq. But if Bush actually starts a slow withdrawal, then THAT will become unpopular instead.

Romney would be easy since he lies and Dennis never does (that we know of) and if we could get the media to do it's job (that means YOU, too, Salon) people would notice this.

Julie Annie...each time he heard "9/11", Dennis could chose between MuniLite, Iraq War, his tough childhood, or Chinese Toys, just some of the things he made the right call on. And actually Kucinich, I think, can match Rudy for number of wives. Interesting difference, though: Before meeting Elizabeth, Dennis had not been married for quite a while, so apparently he knew when to cool it and wasn't dependent on constant relationships.

Duncan Hunter...now how would we beat him?

Ron Paul...interesting, as Paul offers isolationism and extreme laissez-faire vs Kucinich's reach-out-to-the-world-and-show we're-not-dicks-anymore and Weaken-corporate-power strategy.

That's all I can think of for now...

You are correct, that is a great analogy and totally the democrat's problem.

Isn't that another way to arrive at an answer?

Or,

Who holds out the best chance for a big margin win against any challenger?

As a lifelong Democrat I know two things:

The least electable Democratic candidate is Senator Clinton, and

Barack Obama has the biggest general margin upside (since Senator Clinton can't overcome the almost 50% of Americans who already will affirmatively vote against her.)

because many centrist Democrats would choose him over HRC. (Which would be silly, IMHO, but would happen, if the several posters here on salon are any indication of the electorate as a whole).

No other match up would really upset Democratic dreams of the White House. The other Republican candidates are too divisive, or too irrelevant, or too scary. The GOP would splinter over Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani, McCain (if running against Obama or Edwards) has toomany ghosts from 2000. And I can't imagine Thompson as a serious contender.

Wish Kucinich were being taken more seriously. He's the one I am most like-minded, policy-wise. But whoever the Democratic nominee is, I will vote, volunteer, and agitate for. Ther'e a huge abyss between the parties, no matter what the disillusioned Salonistas might feel.

Electability is not (and has not been) a genuine concern. It all comes down to who can be the most convincingly real, the most true to him (or her) self. Any Democrat can beat any Republican, so maybe we may now commence determination of who is the best. After all, why not the best? I mean really, why not? How long has it been since we've had a "problem" like this one? An embarassment of riches on one side and an embarassment - period - on the other side.

In the words of the great George Clinton: "Think! It's not illegal yet!"