I am supporting Obama as well but I am not sure if one can reasonably argue that he has an advantage over Edwards.  Obama does slightly better in five columns, Edwards substantially in the sixth, so much so that it may well be a fluke.  Regardless, Obama's lead over Edwards is so slight that it is statistically meaningless.

More importantly, in light of American race dynamics, sadly, one must suspect that these polls are slightly overestimating Obama's support because there will be a number of racists who don't dare to admit their sentiments to the interviewer.  In the secrecy of the ballot box, most of them will ultimately vote on their racial preferences.

Having said that both Obama and Edwards are in a strong position.  Clinton is the Republicans' best hope.  On the other hand, Obama's and Edwards' negatives will increase as well when the Republican attack machine targets them.  Still, on balance, I think that a Clinton nomination would be a gift to the Republicans.

Both Edwards and Obama are within the margin of error. This far out that's too little difference to  favor one above the other as strongest candidate.

Hillary seems to be underperforming at the moment.

I think you can make electoral college evaluations. A woman, especially one not considered likable, doesn't figure to play as well in vital swing states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Those are still basically conservative states where we have little margin for error. Only Ohio would be favored in our camp right now, regardless of the nominee.

I love our overall position but no way I'm ignoring basic electability. It bit our ass here in the Nevada governors race last year when we rolled the dice and nominated a female with likability and electability issues. She lost handily to a bumbling goober who is facing a possible recall situation.

Dynamics change based on matchups. I deal with that every day in sports so I'm far less reluctant to apply it to politics, and am amazed when others want to ignore it. When Georgetown came from behind to upset North Carolina in the regional final that dramatically altered the Final Four, essentially doubling Florida's chance. That was true in terms of talent, style and game odds. When Chicago defeated New Orleans in the NFC title game, suddenly you had a 6.7 yards per attempt QB trying to win the Super Bowl in Grossman and not an 8.0 guy in Drew Brees. Best of luck in that. Not much different in politics, where we forfeit the dosage index edge if we nominate Hillary. The differences are slight but critical. I'm a gambler and I want the edges in my favor, not tilting the other way.  

Leaving Romney out of this comparison, since he's toast any which way:

In the four polls against Giuliani and McCain, Hillary has an average edge of 1.75%.  Not much.

For Obama, it's 10%; for Edwards, it's 8.25%.  Pretty solid in both cases.

That's an argument for deciding between Edwards and Obama on the basis of which one you'd really like to see in the White House, but factoring in Clinton's possible electability problems.

Especially because, ever since her post-announcement bounce, her approval ratings have been dropping like a rock, from an approval/disapproval of 58-40 on Feb. 9-11, to 54-42 on March 2-4, to 48-48 on March 23-25, to 47-49 on April 2-5, to 45-52 on April 13-15.  (All numbers from Gallup.)

There's a big risk factor present with Clinton in terms of electability that isn't present with Obama or Edwards.  Unless she has some pretty substantial premium over the other two in terms of her likely performance as President, why would you want to take that risk?  The downside, after all, is a McCain or Giuliani Presidency.

Boy, that democracy thing really bites, doesn't it?   And, of all things, the head-to-head matchup in the Newsweek poll between Clinton and Obama/Edwards shows clearly who DEMOCRATS think makes our best candidate.   I think WE know better than low-information right-wing GOPers or low-information Independents which candidate should be our representative.  The biggest reason cited for opposition to Hillary Clinton was that she is "too liberal," after all.  

Do you have a specific source/date when Kristol said that?  I think more people are already paying attention and greater attention than you imply- relatively.  It would be interesting if pollsters asked Republicans which one of our Big 3 they would rather run against (sorry, Richardson 08).

Finally, I would maybe substitute "ironically" with "tragically."  But of course, it is partially her fault because when you constantly put out "us versus them", that is what you get back.

Considering that you want to stop Hillary I am a bit surprised to see that you are supporting Richardson instead of Obama or Edwards?

The Congressional Republicans are in a terrible place politically - not that I'm shedding any tears.

On the one hand, about 57-60% of Americans want us out of Iraq by next year.  On the other hand, 30-35% of Americans want us to stay and 'finish the job' - and they're all in the GOP base.

So they're stuck with the dilemma of: how do you win an election if you support the President, and how do you win a primary if you don't?

Bet a bunch of them have changes of heart once deadlines for primary challenges pass early next year.

This is why the Dems should alternate 60-day funding extensions with the bill that Bush just vetoed.  First one, then the other, all through the year.  Get them voting to prolong the war as many times as possible, so that if they have politically safe conversions next spring, it'll be obvious to everyone just what their game was.

They will rally behind their candidate just like we will, especially since they are backed into a corner now losing both house and senate.

One possible reason could be who Democrats actually prefer to be their nominee (instead of the General population, which also consists consists of many low-info GOPers and low-info Independents.)  

 It is obvious that Edwards can't attract Democrats in large enough numbers.  His first AND second choice numbers don't even hit 30% COMBINED, which should tell you that unless he can dramatically change that alignment he does not stand a chance.    

Basically, the argument that the candidate who appeals strongest to the general population because of "unfortunate" misconceptions right-wingers may have about the other candidate (they believe by and large that Clinton is "too liberal") is flawed.   It is first and foremost about who DEMOCRATS like best of the candidates running.   Lieberman polled well with the general population, but that does not mean that he is a good or the best candidate for DEMOCRATS.  

The Newsweek poll referenced here shows a very clear and strong pro-Clinton position taken by Democrats, when compared to the other candidates:

Clinton    51%
Obama    39%

Clinton    57%
Edwards  38%

Obama    49%
Edwards  41%

Democrats prefer Clinton to Obama by a healthy margin, they prefer Clinton to Edwards by a massive margin.  They also prefer Obama to Edwards by a healthy margin.

It gets worse when SECOND choices are asked for and given.  She is popular as a first or second choice with almost 7 of 10 Democrats, after all, a very strong position to be in at this point.  In contrast, Edwards does not even get 3 of 10 Democrats to list him as their first OR second choice.  

As Singer pointed out, all 3 candidates look to be in a healthy position against the GOP candidates, but apparently Democrats strongly prefer that candidate to be Clinton (so far) and that choice could also become important regionally, as a potential Giuliani candidacy could become a problem in states like NY or NJ with Obama or Edwards as our candidate.  

It is also worth noting that another major poll a few days ago took state polls in the most crucial states (more important than national polls) and dissected them as for head-to-head matchups, and Obama fared very poorly.   Not that these head-to-head matchups mean that much, what is most important for the primaries is how you are liked or disliked by your base, first and foremost.  

I saw this poll and saw that all of our three candidates beat the republicans which is good.

I looked at the internals of this poll and found this:

Democrats 36 %
Independents 35%
Republicans 22%

This is just not accurate. Most polls are showing a 5-6.5%  difference between Dem's and Republicans not 14% LIKE THIS POLL. When I see things like this, I tend to dis-credit the entire poll.

I want us to win, but I have to call out bull shit polls when I see them even if they favor us.

McCain and Guiliani are currently highly overvaluated in the polls as well. Both are likely to implode. Romney would have a surprising show of strenght compared to them when nominated.

plukasiak, you said:

"Obama will be significantly weaker than he appears.   Everyone has heard of him, and his press so far has been overwhelmingly positive.  Because this poll includes leaners, you doubtless have a very strong "Bradley effect" with Obama."

This statement doesn't make any sense to me.  Are you talking about in the primary or the general?  

1) Obama strength with indies will make him stronger in the fall.

2) "Everyone has heard of him."  An amazing number of people I run into wearing my Obama button know almost nothing about him.  

3)"overwhelmingly positive press":  He has had a lot of press scrutiny already, and a number of little "scandal of the day" type stories which look like opposition plants.  Trust me if HRC has some major dirt she would be flinging it.  She needs to beat back his challenge now.  If he pulls ahead of her in the polls, I think she is toast.

Most candidates win by raising the most.  Hillary took the low end for expectations while Obama broke his.  The odds could be changing soon.  

I think Clinton has the best chance of winning the general election, Edwards has second best chance, and Obama has third best chance. The SUSA State polls show Obama polls far below Clinton and Edwards in some blue states which would be in danger of turning red.