This is why only John Edwards can defeat Hilary Clinton on real issues.  Obama's personality driven candidacy is bound to fail.

John Edwards can defeat Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama, with all his money and fawning press, has made no dent in the polls against Clinton since January.  He failed.  

I'm not sure that most Democratic primary years loved the Clinton years. Certainly most progressives didn't love NAFTA, welfare reform, continuing income inequality, the failure of health care reform, the SOTU speeches that highlighted school uniforms but didn't even mention poverty, the expanded federal death penalty, and a general selling out of progressive principles. That's why Hillary herself has distanced herself from some of Bill's policies, especially on trade.

While Obama's inexperience on the national stage may be a disadvatange, I don't think running against Clinton is nearly as complicated as you claim.

Excellent analysis, Todd.

I agree that Democratic voters want redemption for the stolen election, and what better candidate than Clinton, who many see as the "partner" in a presidency that would have easily won re-election, had it not been for term limits.  

People like the fighting spirit that Hillary Clinton has shown to express disdain with the Bushes and Cheneys of the world.  In a way they sense the strong disdain that Clinton has for these people, who, in her mind, stole the election to begin with from us.   Who does not remember Bill Clinton's fighting, defiant words during election season on his appearance on Chris Wallace's show about the 9/11 question.  His strong words rallyed the Democratic party as a whole, which right after became a lot more combative with the right-wing themselves, shed their tentative posture after seeing Bill Clinton passionate and partisan, and, most importantly, going right after the GOP's jugular.   This is more of the same thing.  It actually helps Hillary Clinton to be lumped in with Bill Clinton in the right-wing's critique's of the "Clinton years," because the vast majority of Democrats remember them fondly and would like to return to those years soon, preferrably yesterday.

This is why Obama's 'change' slogan itself is very flawed and empty, and I don't believe it will resonate with voters anymore.

In 2006, we had a 'change' election, has anything changed in Washington?

In 2000, George W. Bush ran a 'change' election touting being an 'uniter' and 'outsider'. Pretty much the same appeal of Obama.

When voters settle down thinking about these slogans, the conclusion they will have is that 'Yes, we want change, change to competence'.
That's exactly why Hillary will prevail in the end.

1. Gore's impact on the race is a matter of opinion. His support base is split between low- and high-information Democrats, and there's no way to predict which group would grow by how much after a hypothetical Gore entry. PsiFighter apparently thinks that he will rob HRC of a lot of low-information voters. That's an opinion, and a fairly well argued one, but not a fact.

Low-information voters ultimately bend to high-information voters. They just take much, much longer to do so, and they do so very unpredictably (before even taking into account concurrent fluctuations among high-info voters).

2. The Clinton pardons were an impressive low point in that presidency, right behind all the china the Clintons carted out of the White House.

Marc. Rich. Oil for food, Saddam Hussein, and so on. People haven't forgotten about all of that. to the extent that they have forgotten, they will be well reminded of it in due time.

3. Obama has been getting bogus flak for every news cycle in recent memory. I would expect a significant shift in the polling average conducted after his fundraising came out.

4. Polls equal present support. Donations and donors are future support. Future support matters, and on that score Obama is cleaning Hillary's clock. Your constant announcements of Hillary's inevitability are as premature as they are oddly self-serving.

Todd, I think you are wrong. I don't think Hillary had a good week last week at all.  Not nearly as well as they had hoped.  The Libby pardon knocked them off thier game.  A lot of the press was luke warm and the discussions of the Clinon pardons and Clinton lies under oath were unpleasant reminders of what may come in the 2008 campaign.  

I actually think Hillary is starting to run into some trouble.  The predictions market tanked on Friday which means that investors/gamblers are selling their Clinton stock.  Many pundits and journalists seem to have bought into the Obama campaign argument that polls are largely irrelevant at this point and more an indication of name recognition.  That his donor base and fundraising prowess is substantial and more enough to win. There seems to be growing appreciation for Obama the candidate in the chattering class.

I don't know if Bush did it on purpose but I think it hurt Hillary to have Libby pardoned last week.  I think it pointed out that Bill is a double edged sword that will cut both ways: he can help her but he can also hurt her.
 

She is the candidate that is offering the best combo of talking about issues that are important to Democrats, sticking it to Bush and the Republicans, and looking the most Presidential.  She is the most complete package.

In my opinion all of the candidates are doing a decent job on the issues.  But Obama and Edwards have some weaknesses.

Obama isn't doing a good enough job of taking it to Bush and the Republicans.  Primary voters need a little red meat.  I think Obama's talk of bi-partisanship rings a bit hollow with many.

Edwards isn't looking very Presidential thanks to things both outside and within his control.  The hair cut thing is an unwelcome distraction and the war of words with Coulter was the wrong thing to do.

As for experience I do think Obama and Edwards are at a disadvantage.  Because Hillary was in the White House and in the national eye for all those years I think a lot of voters see her as having a lot of experience, even though her Senate experience isn't miles apart from Obama or Edwards.  

Hillary is not winning anything -- polls at this stage of the game do not mean anything; and, in as much as you can draw anything concrete from them at all, polls consistently show that low-information voters prefer her and high-information voters Barack.  She is high in the polls right now for one simple reason -- a superficial name-id associated with a vaguely perceived leadership quality.  When more voters cotton on to what that leadership consists of (a rather brittle front on an inherently diligent-yet-vision-less core), I am almost certain that there will be a sharp pivot away from her.  If it does not, we are all in for more trouble than we realize.  I will vote for her over the rethug in the general (as I will for any other Democrat on the ballot), but I will pray hard after I do, that she is not as belligerent as she wants to sound to get there -- and I am an atheist :-(

To the extent that her "strength" in the polls troubles me, it is only when her poll numbers seem to jump a bit after she makes all those inane hawkish noises in debates -- it scares me that there are idiot "hawks" (more like vultures, really, living off the deaths of other people's children soldiers sent to unnecessary wars started by insecure people propping up their images by rattling the saber in the 21st century, no less) in the grassroots of the Democratic party, too...

You keep bringin up the "beloved" clinton years as if all Americans evenly benefited from the clinton administration.  What was so beloved about the clinton years for African Americans and Latinos? in case you forget clinton signed NAFTA, Three strikes you're out (responsible for sending more blacks and latinos to jail than any other 8 year presidential period inclunding the current administration), dont ask dont tell, unneeded sanctions on Iraq responsible for the deaths of more than a million children, and that's without mentioning the fact that clinton bombed iraq to take the attention to his sex-with-an-intern scandal, his money dealings with Archer Daniels Midland  (google it just to get a reminder), or the fact that Bill clinton turned U.S Intelligence into a cash cow, WACO, the whole Elian Gonzalez thing, Kosovo, Rwanda, the Colombian civil war.

Should I go on?

It truly scapes me that you're praising Hillary when all she's doing is running on the C- legacy of her husband.  Hillary on her own, has no clothes just like George Bush.

Ya know, there are other folks in the race.  Folks doing better than Obama in all Iowa polls and better than Obama in several SC and NH polls.

I've always wondered about the meaning of Hillary's lead.  She's usually got a plurality somewhere in the thirties or low forties.  Can anyone explain to me why, since most state's primaries award delegates proportionally, that this won't result in an open convention where Hillary has 35-40% of the votes and other candidates have 60-65%?  Seems less than "inevitable" and sounds like the nomination might actually be decided at the convention.

Or am I missing something?

Ah, I think everyone is missing the major point working FOR Hillary: being female.

And women will vote for her, in droves. No matter what the politics, she's viable and will tip the scales when a majority of women ( of whom a majority of voters ARE women ) will vote her in.

Winning what? I didn't know she'd won a primary already.

I think Bill being associated with Hillary's 2008 bid is hurting Bill, Hillary and the Democrats in general. Bill was able to distance himself from the scandals and disasters of his presidency by becoming a statesman...doing good in the world and being less partisan. Take note of his friendship with the senior Bush, his work on world-wide proverty initiatives, his non-partisan approach and even support of GW Bush. Putting him front and center in Hillary's campaign makes many people focus on his negative and unpopular initiatives, the dynasty thing, and how divided we are and how nasty things have become in politics.

Being associated with Bill's presidency hurts HRC in the General Election because she can't run on the war (she vote for it/he agreed with it) she can't run on health care (after her attempt at Hillary care even she is afraid to offer anything substantial about it) she can't run on changing the partisan politics (together they generate large amounts of it), campaign finance reform (no credibility) trade (her husband signed that disasterous NAFTA) justice (mandatory sentencing, 3 strikes) honesty in the White House (Bill's perjury)and more. There is almost no important issue that she can take a clear shot at the republicans without ducking intense return fire.

And the above list was generated by someone who was really fond of the Clinton years. Now add to that all the reasons the right has to despi