Most polling outfits really struggle to accurately poll the IA caucus...I seriously doubt anyone has a clue what a "likely caucus goes" looks like in NV.

Come on, that is such BS. Who among the top three doesn't have 99+ name recognition at this point?  We have three strong candidates, and that means things are going to be tight.  The other candidates, who legitimately don't have high name recognition, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, are sucking wind.  The sheer amount of money the top three raised tells me that everybody knows their names, maybe not their message, but certainly their names.  Hillary may not be able to win a MyDD straw poll, but she can and hopefully will win the nomination.

"Amazing thing is that Clinton is so weak?"   That has got to be a joke, right?  In a field of 8 candidates running getting almost 40% across the board is quite strong.  If THAT is considered weak, Edwards 18.1% has to be considered abysmal, given that he ran a high-profile campaign for president 3 years ago, was part of the Democratic team, running for vice president, and has himself a name ID recognition factor of well over 90% by now.  

Contrast that to previous "frontrunners" at this time of the game, and you understand that what you describe as weak is actually quite strong in a crowded field, and your point has no merit.

Polls from 2003:

Lieberman, Kerry, Dean and Gephardt all relatively weak at 18%, 21%, 14%, 12%.  No frontrunner at all, just fairly weak candidates trading leads in a relatively weak field.  

http://www.politics-now.com/polling/demo cratprimary2004.htm

1999:  In a 2-person race Gore and Bradley were basically even until very late in the contest.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1 999/10/29/poll/index.html

1995:  Bill Clinton ran for re-election without a challenger.

1991: Bill Clinton, Tsongas, Harkin, Wilder and Brown.  No clear frontrunner there, polls all over the place.  In fact, Harkin won Iowa, Tsongas won New Hampshire, Brown won early Colorado, then it was all Clinton from then on (except for Brown taking Connecticut.)  

1987: Was Dukakis the clear frontrunner in that contest?  Please.  He was helped by Gary Hart's personal issues, and received a rather strong challenge from Jesse Jackson in the 1988 contest.  

1983:  The Democratic field:  Mondale, Gary Hart, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson.  By end of Q1 none of the candidates were in the 30s in any polls.

1979: Carter ran for re-election against Reagan.

1975:  The field:  Carter, Udall, J. Brown, George Wallace.  Carter was not an early frontrunner, in fact he ran second in Iowa to "uncommitted" and polls before summer did not show him to be strong by any means.  That changed in the fall.  

Not going any further back.  :-)
---------------------------------------- ---------

So, a few corrections are in order:

1. "Clinton is so weak"   - Humbug.  She is in a stronger April position than any Democratic candidate outside of Bill Clinton running for re-election in 1996.  Her polls close to 40% (nationally and in state polls aggregates) in a field of 8 are better than any polls we had seen heretofore from any of our candidates, going back to 1975, and even before that (did not want to list further back than that.)    

2. "By the standards of front-runners of years past she is in a very weak position and they mostly had the advantage of clear leads in fundraising."

I researched into this matter quite thoroughly and found no evidence of a "standard of front-runners of years' past" that would buttress your point.  In fact, I clearly found no evidence of as clear a frontrunner in any race dating way back compared to the picture that is presented to us by Clinton's lead in national polls, the aggregate of state polls, and big-state polls slated to have primaries on 1/29 and 2/5.

She obviously has not closed the sale or is the shoe-in candidate.  But to call her showing so far "weak" is ridiculous and ignorant of actual presidential primary history.