How may completely bullshit, artificial, inside-baseball memes do you want to push in one #$%^&* paragraph?

Edwards' populism sounds increasingly angry, and voters don't elect angry people to the presidency. Edwards has seen a clear lead in Iowa shrink to a statistical tie with Clinton and Obama.

Also, many Iowa Democrats are worried about Clinton's electability. She has moved up in Iowa surveys as she debates well and addresses the issue, but the question hasn't gone away and remains her single biggest impediment to the nomination.

Obama is vexed by questions about his lack of experience. He also has upset some Democratic constituency groups by blowing off a number of Iowa events and debates because he doesn't want to be seen with his rivals.

I mean, seriously.  This is political reporting?

Why don't you watch Edwards on the stump...he sure doesn't seem "angry" to me.  And what's wrong with anger, anyway?

Voters are only worried about Clinton's electability because fools like you are pushing the meme, regardless of the facts.  And did you actually talk with "voters", or pull that out of your ass?

Obama's "inexperienced"?  Wow...new one.  And he ducked out of debates "because he doesn't want to be seen with his rivals"?  Really?  Not because he wanted to spend a couple days home with the family?  Or because there's an insane number of "forums" for this contest?  Are you a friggin' mindreader?

Grrr....

Keep in mind, Biden is about to hold some high-profile Iraq hearings, and will play a key role in the confirmation hearings for Abu Gonzo's successor. Throw in the Iowa ads, and he could move up as much as Richardson has and as much as we claim Dodd might.

But the fact that the simple addition of Gore's name to the list of choices shakes up current preferences to this degree tells us that the vote preferences we are watching are still tentative, and the Democratic race is still a long way from over.

No.  The addition of Gore's name means that Gore is a popular figure, nothing else. That Michigan poll is ridiculous.  One can't reasonably argue that any of the top three have soft support by including a candidate who isn't running and who isn't going to run.

Rashomon is right about Yepsen's so-called analysis.  I continue to say that the Clinton electability meme is a strawman. I think it was a mistake for Obama to drop out of the forums, but I don't believe for one minute that he did it because he didn't want to be seen with his rivals.  Also, Edwards is trying to draw distinctions between himself and the others.  He needs to be careful about it, but I don't think he sounds angry.

Seriously, Beeton, stop treating Yepsen like anything other than the Republican hack that he is.  It is people like you who give his opinion power.

I do think there is a possibility that Richardson could break into the top tier if he keeps plugging away.  It's not likely, but it's certainly possible.  He's been inching up in the polls (very slowly) for the past couple of months, but at this rate, it'll be April before he breaks 20%.

The month of Spetember will NOT focus on whether Bill Richardson will have residual troops in 2009.

The month of Spetember will be about leading on Iraq NOW.

Richardson is failing that test.

Edwards and Dodd are passing.

Incompletes right now for Clinton and Obama.

Biden we know will fail, as I view it.

Kucinich and Gravel will be in the right place but will they matter? Not so much.

You know I see a lot of people responding here as to how "electable" each candidate is or is not.  There's a great deal at stake for this election and I know we all want to endorse the right candidate and I think it's a really good thing we're trying to come to a real consensus before jumping headlong into one candidate or the other.  We also all feel a great deal of pressure to come to that consensus soon, so that the progressive blog presence has time to make an impact on the primaries.

What I think I'd like us to all remember here is that we should not get stuck in the primaries on who is "electable."  I think back to 2004 and everyone I know said "Dean just isn't electable." And then after the election my conservative friends all said they were glad we had picked a lack luster candidate like Kerry; that they were really most worried about a strong voice like Dean.  Now we're all looking for the candidate that most ignites us, like Dean.

At the same time I hear in this post and it's comments people worrying about who (besides Kucinich, because he's just not electable) is the closest thing to a true progressive candidate.  I always thought that the primaries were designed to air our grievances with the party and vote our conscience and in that we determine what our party is about and who we consider electable.  Then during the national election we back who-so-ever won the primary.

I'm sure I will receive responses calling me overly-idealistic but if we all like Kucinich's platform, then lets just fucking choose him as the truly progressive candidate that he is and get the debate going in that direction.  Who cares if he's "electable?"  Thinking like that is how we ended up with Kerry last time, and it's how we are going to end up with Hillary this time if we aren't careful to keep our ideals in mind and not worry about the "electability" of this one or the other.

I love the way the various candidates who aren't so pro-corporate get the little slams thrown at them.  All of this always basically adds up to people saying ... yes, this candidate sounds good and you probably agree with him ... but you should vote for him because [fill in the blank].

The classic case is just listed above, with the BS about 'electable'.  That's the way the Kerry campaign and the corporate media combined to make him the nominee in 2004.  That silly myth they both spun that said since he was a vet the Republicans couldn't possibly attack him.  How'd that work out for ya?

There's another one higher up in this article.  The slam at Edwards for sounding "angry", then the piece of BS that follows about how some how angry politicians can't get elected.  When?  Which campaigns?  

I ask, because an 'angry' politician in a year with happy, complacent voters might have a problem.  But an angry politician in a year with angry voters might be just the thing.

But, the real point that's being made in the background is that the party has to stick with one of the corporate-approved candidates... basically Hillary or Obama.  The non-spoken point that's being made is that we can't possibly go with a candidate that's talking about the problems real voters are facing and maybe proposing solutions that aren't corporate-approved.  Its just that the vehicle used to make that point is the backhanded slap at Edwards being "angry".

A variation on the old bumper sticker comes to mind.  Right now, if you ain't angry, you ain't paying attention.  Maybe an angry populist is exactly the candidate to puncture the BS that's sure to surround McCainGuillianiThompson.

Of course, I read this after nearly falling off my chair laughing at the other article pumping the Joe Biden for President campaign.  Yikes!

Todd:

I think the pundits wrap themselves into knots making what is a simple race more difficult to understand than it needs to be:

a) Clinton went into the race as the front runner. She's led every Democratic poll dating back to 2003. She and her husband have deep tentacles into every constituency of the party, going back three decades. She has the best campaign organization and the best preparation. She hasn't faltered. In fact, she run the best campaign and proven to be the strongest candidate on the stump. So, big surprise, she's still the commanding front-runner.

b) Obama is Mr. Charisma. His shot was to enter the race and ride a wave of excitement past Clinton. Didn't happen. He got in, rode a wave of excitement to 25% in the polls, and hasn't gained an inch since them. The reason? No matter how charismatic, he failed to cross the presidential commander-in-chief threshold. Not surprising. In my lifetime, no candidate has been a serious threat for the Presidency 2.5 years removed from the statehouse.

c) Edwards. OK candidate. In most cycles, he's be a contender. In 2008, all the oxygen in the room is being sucked up by two larger than life candidates. Edwards looks like a mere mortal in comparison and that's where he's polling. His only real bump in the race came after his wife's terminal cancer announcement. But, that will also prevent him from getting the announcement as the Party can't afford to have him potentially off the trail tending to his wife in the fall of 2008. Cold? Yes. But, I don't want to lose to the Republicans because our candidate can't campaign.

As much as everyone would like to find something to change the dynamics of the race, there's really nothing on the horizon. That's why Obama and Edwards have made the desperation move of going negative against the front-runner.

We have an angry president now and it makes people very nervous.  I am sorry that Edwards candidacy has come down to this.  If he has something to say about Hillary Clinton he should say it himself and not have his sick wife do it for him.  Why is Elizabeth Edwards, who is sick with Cancer out there everyday attacking other candidates on behalf of her husband?  She has 2 small children who need to be with their mom and she owes it to her family to be as rested and healthy as she can be.