November 2008 is still over a year away. The primaries are months away. Both the Republican and Democratic fields are flooded with candidates. And the candidates are only just starting to talk about their specific proposals.

I consider myself a pretty informed candidate and I'm undecided--not undecided about party, though.

Now, the people that are still undecided the month before the November elections...those people scare me.

Recently, I was thinking that because talk of a Gore candidacy had died down, it would probably mean he wouldn't run. But now I think it makes more sense for him to enter as a clear-cut leader emerges. Why would he want to try to compete among the voices out there, instead of having to face off against only one candidate. He could arguably demolish any single candidate out there save for perhaps Hillary, and even then, he'd still give her as big of challenge as anyone.

While I've been somewhat surprisingly pleased by Hillary's campaign, I still hope Gore runs.

Aren't voters in New Hampshire and Iowa famously coy about who they are supporting? Don't they often say they are undecided, even when they've pretty much made up their mind, because it keeps the media & candidates interested in them? Don't know, just asking.

We'll get X and X will do pretty much nothing. It doesn't matter who X is or which party X is from. It's all just designed to pretend to placate half the voters and enrage the other half. We shouldn't take it too seriously.

Candidate in '08: A vote for....something, or not.

I'm a staunch Dem that is very educated about all of the platforms that the top candidates are offering (Democrats and Republicans). That being said, I suppose I could be considered "undecided", particularly among the Democrats.

Frankly, I think the Democratic nominee is competing against an incredibly deep and strong field. Clinton, Obama and Edwards (collectively "The Big 3") are all great choices to lead the country (albeit in slightly different ways), as are many of the less popular camps.

I am a strong proponent of Edwards (his Two Americas platform resonates with me, in particular), but I at the same time I think this is an excellent opportunity for the U.S. to join the rest of the world and have a female or minority president. While both Clinton and Obama would be fine choices for president had they been born white males, I think that the perspective and symbolism that a non-white, Christian male brings to the table is powerful.

And so I am undecided. Ideologically (and I think in a lot of cases, we are splitting hairs here -- especially when considering the Republican alternatives), I lean Edwards, but am quick to recognize the tangible and intangible benefits that would be yielded from a black or female president.

Living in NH I necessarily hang out with a lot of conservatives, in fact I count many to be very close friends (even if I am a rabid liberal). Much of my family is conservative as well.

I think the thing most Hillary supporters don't realize is that conservatives hate Hillary. And I do mean hate. It's practically pathological. It takes up where Bill let off - impeachment and all. The vitriol they spew is amazing and almost scary.

Last year Democrats won, at least in my opinion, not because they had something better to offer, but because they weren't Republicans. In short, the Republicans stayed home.

However, if Hillary gets the nomination, she is so galvanizing (stupidly I think, because she's probably the least liberal candidate - Republican-lite I'd call her) she will once again bring Republicans to the polls. They will not stay home. They will come out in droves just to make sure she loses.

So, my guess is if she's the Democratic "choice" not only will she get trounced, but while they're at the polls, they're also going to be voting for Republican Congressmen. My guess is we liberals will lose not only the Oval Office but Congress as well. I will be very happy surprised if I'm wrong.

Moreover, I'm sad to see the public choosing as usual the race horse the over-class has already chosen for us. She, like her husband, certainly is eminently qualified for the job and I'm sure will rule with a better and more liberal hand than Mr. Bush, but she is more of the same. Just like Kerry was - part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

In fact NH weather is a good metaphor for Mrs. Clinton - wait a minute and it will change. Same goes for Hillary's positions - wait a minute and they will change, it just depends on polls or who's paying the money.

The Clinton surge is demoralizing. I won't vote for her if she wins the Democratic nomination, because she represents a fake Democrat, a fizzy corporate confection served up ice cold -- she's Pepsi, the Republican fascist du jour is Coke, while I'm thinking a beer would be more the thing, but nobody's serving that up, candidate-wise.

Do Democrats even still drink beer? Seems like they ran away from populism and never looked back, and are busy thinking they're going to be able to fake it indefinitely, and not be held to account for it.

New blood, new ideas. That's what we need, desperately. But until the money blockade is lifted, it won't happen.

Hillary's "widening lead"? With 43% support among the 45% of New Hampshire Dems who have expressed a preference at this point, Clinton's support comes to a whopping... 19% of state Democrats.

Yep, seems like a juggernaut to me.

"When the pollsters asked Republicans whom they'd support if they had to vote today, 25 percent said Mitt Romney and 24 percent said Rudy Giuliani, a statistical dead heat and a pretty serious change of fortune for Romney, who led Giuliani by 14 percentage points in July."

Apparently, Salon's editors don't actually read the comments section, as I've posted this 3 times at least. Perhaps I should send it is as a correction. Read this: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/4/292.pdf

It's only 2 pages, and it won't hurt. It breaks down statistical analysis as it relates to these insipid polls very quickly and easily. There's a 69% chance that Romney would win today. That is NOT a dead heat. It would be a dead heat, or tie if you'd rather avoid a cliche, if they were both at 25%.