Judging from the response of progressive Democrats to the latest capitulation by House/Senate Democrats to King George on the FISA matter and their seeming unwillingness to use their Congressional powers to bring this criminal administration to justice, I wouldn't be too sure that any Democrat has a lock on the presidency -- or congressional seat, for that matter. Many of the very slim Democratic majority in Congress made it there on the thinnest of vote margins. If the progressives become disillusioned, as is rapidly becoming the case, this could spell the end of any Democratic advantage.

The Dems had better very quickly become the true adversarial party many people thought they were voting for in the last election, or they're gonna be in trouble, big time.

All three of these candidates, though they can at times rise above mediocrity, fail to be inspiring. I just finished Lynne Olson's "Troublesome Young Men" and was struck by the poetic intensity of so many of the Tories speaking in Parliament against Chamberlain and his disastrous policies. Not one of these three "top-tier" candidates has the power of a figure as little known to Americans as Leo Amery. Closer to home, in this same period, there's FDR hitting major points home simply, powerfully, evocatively in speech after speech (check out jean Smith's new FDR) and every keen line makes me lament that we lack figures who can speak to the head and the heart simultaneously, without sounding like every phrase has been weighed by a team of consultants. The Big Three lack vision, and that worries me.

Democrats should take over the White House in 2008, but they won't. That is because they are likely to nominate Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton will not only lose the general election, she will get crushed. Her husband, who is infinitely more popular than she is, never carried more than 50 percent of the popular vote. Furthermore, Hillary is so polarizing she starts off in the hole with over 50 percent of voters stating that they would not vote for her under any circumstances. People say, "she can win, she just has to carry the Kerry states plus Ohio." That assumes that only the states Bush carried are in play and not the states that Kerry carried. Not only will Hillary not carry Ohio, she will lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, and most likely Minnesota, Wisconsin, and perhaps Oregon and Washington -- all states Kerry barely carried. Democrats should wake up and realize that this country will never elect Hillary as President. It's not that she's a woman, it's that she's Hillary.

As for Senator Obama, I just love him, and he will be President some day. It just will not be in 2008. I actually think a President Obama is just what this country needs right now, especially in repairing America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world. However, right now, in the eyes of American voters, he is simply too inexperienced for the voters to turn the keys of government over to him, especially this closely removed from 9-11. Senator Obama will lose the same states as Hillary. For all of his freshness and charisma, he just isn't that exciting on the campaign trial, and couple that with his inexperience, he doesn't stand a chance. It's doubtful he will be nominated, but if he is, he will lose.

The only true chance that the democrats have is to nominate Gore or Edwards. Since Gore is unlikely to get in the race, Edwards stands the best chance. Edwards will not only carry the states Kerry won, but he will pick off Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Florida, New Mexico (okay Gov. Richardson could pick this one off too) and Louisiana, where he has built up good will in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and possibly North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.

2008 should be the year of the democrats, but if they nominate a person half the country hates (Clinton), or a nominee that the country is unsure of (Obama), then the democrats will most certainly lose the White House in 2008. Although Sen. Edwards' campaign has been nit-picked to death on trivial matters, such trivialities will be overcome when it comes crunch time and the country has to pick a new leader. Despite his campaign's missteps, Edwards is still palpable to a majority of voters, his substantive ideas are driving the debate, at least in the democratic primary, he is a dynamic campaigner, has a compelling biography, and a terrific wife.

Edwards is a sure fire winner, and if you don't believe it, just pay attention to how much effort the republican party and the chattering class are expending to knock him around on silly, non-sensical issues. Their hit jobs are evidence enough of how scared republicans are of him.

Edwards, if nominated, would walk into the presidency. Sad thing is that we will never know this, and instead democrats will watch Romney or Thompson take the oath office in Jan. 09, and I'll be the guy who'll come up to you and say, I told you so.

There is still time for democrats to vote strategically in the primaries, and still time for Gore to get into the race.

M. Jimison very articulately lays out the case as to why John Edwards is, by far, the strongest Democratic candidate in 2008. If we nominate Hillary or Barak Obama, we are forced to pursue the same "bet the ranch" electoral strategy that has failed in the last two elections -- we must win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and a handful of other competitive states while ceding entire swaths of the country to the Republicans.

John Edwards, on the other hand, can be competitive in many more States, a good number of which Mr. (or Ms.) Jimison very perceptively identified.

But more than anything else, Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire want to win th is election. Eight years of Bush has taken a monumental toll on our country. this is a time like no other. And indeed, in 2004, the Iowa caucus goers focused in the last weeks on the issue of electability. Rightly or wrongly, they thought that John Kerry was the strongest Democrat on issues of defense and national security. So they picked him -- because they thought he could win.

Once that same analysis comes to the fore in this election, John Edwards will pick up a great deal of support because he is so preeminently the most electable candidate. I think that there is at least a 50% chance that he will win Iowa and at least a 70% chance that if he wins Iowa, he will win the nomination.