Umm, he said he just got done with a major presidential race, and wants to give his family a break, which is pretty understandable.  He never says he doesn't think he could win.

Also, the claim that Edwards will be the big beneficiary if Gore stays out is ridiculous.  Between March and June in this poll, Gore took 5% from Clinton and 2% from Edwards (with 1% from Richardson mixed in there somewhere, and I think its clearly more likely that Richardson supporters would switch to Edwards than to Clinton).  Other poll analyses on this site have confirmed this, though I can't find links right now.  If Gore stays out, Clinton benefits.

He knows he's not going to run, but doesn't rule it out completely because he finds the attention that accompanies him as a possible candidate useful in promoting his other activities.  It's obvious, I don't know why more people don't see this.  He's made so many strong statements at this point that he  isn't thinking about running that if he were to change his mind at this point, without some huge unexpected event changing the political map, he'd be accused by everyone of hypocrisy and the same crass political gamesmanship that he decries in others.  There's no way he's running.  And as such, based on other poll evidence, its likely that Hillary's lead in this poll is several percentage points larger.

Funny.  My main beef with Edwards is that in 2004, he promised over and over that "the south is my backyard, and I can beat George Bush in my backyard."  He tried to portray his potential electability in the south part of his strengths.  And then, put on the ticket, he failed to carry a single southern state.  It was humiliating.  The arguments about Edwards' southern appeal hold less water now that we have actual evidence to judge them with.

No, that's an inaccurate description of what Stoller said. This is what Stoller said:

Having combat troops in country just cannot be reconciled with "No combat troops in the country." These two statements are mutually exclusive.