Oh please. Hillary's campaign is all about it being "her turn". She was seriously pissed when Obama announced because he was stealing her "moment". This is one of the most arrogant DC establishment campaigns I've ever seen. At least in 2000 Al Gore (the establishment candidate) didn't behave like this.
And her campaign is even worse. Their attitude is basically akin to, "How DARE you even IMPLY the Hillary should not be the nominee. We'll bury you! You'll never work for the Democratic party again!"
"Dehumanize your opponent in order to avoid the substance of their message and make it easier for folks to pile on in an attack"
Al Gore (version 1.0, circa 2000) and John Kerry were NOT HUMANS. They were stiff aloof robots. Clinton knows this better than anyone.
Hillary is very similar. She lacks charisma. Like it or not, politics is about communicating a message to voters. If you have a deficient personality, you shouldn't be running for president. Period.
Democrats constantly have the right ideas, but we can't communicate them to voters because we nominate these zeroes. We have a chance to do the right thing this year by nominating Obama or Edwards. Both of these guys can communicate with their fellow human beings. Hillary has limited abilities to do so.
"I suppose this is what Edwards and Obama wanted all along. Knock off Hillary so the fight will be just between the two of them."
Wake up. Edwards is done. He's a spoiler, and his attacks are playing into Obama's hands.
Obama just sits there and watches as Edwards tears Hillary apart. Then Iowa voters, who are notorious for turning away from both the ATTACKED and the ATTACKER (see 2003/4), go to the happy warrior. In 2004, Edwards saw his own support swell because he was running on hope. Obama is perfectly positioned for the same thing to happen.
I dunno. Enforcement first immigration policy polls at like 65-70%. I know you can lose some hispanic votes...but the issue is a winner overall. Why do you think all of those Democrats in red states (and populist democrats who understand that illegal immigration kills low wage workers) voted against the grand compromise?
I thought the whole lesson of Dean/Clark in 2003 was that fundraising quite often means activist/and/or netroots support. And if someone isn't getting money, then they're not exciting anyone.
Edwards has excited some liberal bloggers by running a really wonky lefty campaign. And I have to say, I like most of his issues. But the low fundraising (and it's beyond low - it's pathetic) has to mean something, right?
The diarist makes some good points here...but unfortunately, whatever Dodd says takes place in a complete vacuum. A Chris Dodd press release is about as meaningful to this debate as this comment I'm typing right now.