As much as I despise Hillary Clinton (and I do)...she can still win. She's carries some risk...but she can definitely win. It's a dem wave year (at the presidential level). Almost anyone can win.
And despite what the blogs think, Obama is widely seen as the most electable candidate...at least amongst the political hack class. Polling numbers with republicans are just astounding...he's just a positive candidate in a troubled time. And he's about as liberal as they come, so no complaints ideologically.
Basically, here's the explanation for Edwards' popularity on the blogs:
1. He's anti-free trade (ahem...lately). And that's an issue that's been ignored by the Dems in washington (deservedly so).
2. He's got a network of fans who email each other and recommend mundane DK diaries. Trust me, this works. We did it with Webb in 2006 with the most boring, idiotic, and pointless diaries. we'd email folks and then recommend some diary that was like:
"Webb endorsed by assistant treasurer from Richmond city!"
And it would make the rec list.
Edwards' campaign has focused on getting their diaries recommended instead of raising money or not marking down $400 hair cuts as campaign expenses.
Yeah. Edwards' poll numbers against GOP candidates are basically generic dem with a southern accent VS GOP. The general election would have an entirely different dynamic. It's pretty much CW that Obama's charisma would shoot him upwards, while Hillary's personality and lack of charisma would kill her support.
Personally, I think Edwards would be a decent candidate, but it's not a homerun that he's way better than the others...
Why would Gore endorse the guy who is running the worst campaign and hasn't attracted any supporters? He can't raise money, no one is excited by his campaing, and he's made huge gaffes that have made him look silly. Outside of a couple of large blogs, Edwards is not even part of the conversation.
Gore will side with Clinton or Obama - whoever looks likely to win the nomination. Gore is an insider.
Is there any evidence that Richardson is any less hawkish than the other candidates? Probably not. Most likely, he's just pandering more blatantly...and he'll govern in the exact same manner...except he'll be crippled by sex scandals through his term.
Mark Warner won rural aress on economic development. He's a rich guy - so he didn't condescend rural folks by telling them that the rich were to blame for their lives. He told them he'd bring job training programs and spent time listening to them. He spent years doing economic development in SW VA.
Many of the folks on Mark Warner's team are now on Edwards' team, but they're not having the same luck...
I don't agree with the reasoning, but the general argument is that Edwards' populist message will appeal to red staters. In other words - if someone rants against corporations and the rich and proposes a bunch of government programs to deal with these folks, red staters can be won.
I'm a bit skeptical. Edwards' potential red state strength is superficial things - like his southern accent and his charisma. Unfortunately, those are no longer the dominant traits that people associate with Edwards. Now they think of him as a pampered rich guy.