To be honest, Kevin, I think you're -looking- for a reason not to support Edwards. I'm not sure exactly why--some internalization of the media narrative (see Somberby!), perhaps.

Maybe I'm wrong, but as someone who doesn't support Edwards, that point has sorta stuck out at me. I wonder if you'd agree, after giving this idea a good Drumming over.

I similarly am hearing from a lot of democrats in Texas that they won't vote for Hillary. From my exposure to anecdotal evidence, JH looks to be correctly identifying a problem with the Hillary candidacy. And I also agree it's mostly irrational and uninformed hatred.

I think it would be especially prudent for Hillary to have some targeted polling done in the south (particularly potential swing states like Virgina), to determine if this observed phenomenon is a real issue. A related issue, which a politically astute friend recently raised with me, is the degree to which Hillary's name at the top of the ballot hurts good democratic candidates in other races in the south. Nothing tends to mobilize the right wing more than saying the name "Hillary."

All that said, I am a Hillary supporter, and think she'd be a terrific president, if not quite as liberal as I'd like (Dodd has also been a favorite of mine.)

Again, kevin you are spot on. As a 3rd generation Texan, i love my state but getting tired of having to deal with the pandejo's. Texas is about to change, even some thinking republican's( i know, i know insert pun here)want change.

but the south has a whole on the fundies, with there nascar mentality. the south will be held back because of the love of christ.

On a broader note, I almost consider this a reason not to support Edwards. One way or another, Democrats have to get away from the trap of believing that the only way to win the presidency is to nominate a Southerner.

Good point Kevin. Even if Edwards is more electable, it's more important to break from the Bill Clinton/Jimmy Carter mode of choosing a Democrtic candidate and choosing a black man or a woman would definitely do that. As the old saying goes it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. Choosing a black man (Obama) or a woman (Hillary) would show the country the Democrats sincere strong belief in diversity and breaking from tradition. Whether you win or lose the election after that is not that important.

If that's actually true--the South (Southern conservatives, really) hates HRC with particular vehemence--then I'm much more amenable to an HRC presidency.

I think the different takes on the candidates depends on your vantage point. The netroots, in my opinion, has two priorities: 1) winning and 2) winning. Everything flows from taking over the positions of power. In that light, the policy differences amongst the democrats pale in comparison with any democrat and the republicans. The blogosphere is liberal when it suits, and not when it doesn't. Note the support of Jim Webb and John Tester.

Obama is not demonstrating his ability, in the relatively friendly democratic primary, to show his greatness or desire to take the mantle. Worse, in being relatively meek in the primaries, he looks incapable of withstanding the predictable republican onslaught. We learned from John Kerry that your resume and past history aren't enough of a shield. You need to unsheath the long knives and go for the jugular. So far, Clinton is doing that best. Note her team's work in turning back the Giuliani backers attempts in California. As for John Edwards, his acceptance of matching funds means he can't compete in the Spring and Summer. That is a big loser. Thus, it is no surprise that lefty bloggers are jumping ship. They prize fighters above all.

The Hillary Guliani matchup may be intuitively the way most peole see it but I think it is opposite how it would play out.

Hillary is the candidate that people hate until they get to know.

Guliani is the candidate that people like until they get to know.

Once America gets to know both, Hillary will crush Guliani.

IMNO>

I similarly am hearing from a lot of democrats in Texas that they won't vote for Hillary. From my exposure to anecdotal evidence, JH looks to be correctly identifying a problem with the Hillary candidacy. And I also agree it's mostly irrational and uninformed hatred."Hillary." Posted by: Tom in Houston

Well, if they aren't going to vote for Hillary, does that mean it's smooth sailing for Rudy in the Lone Star state? I doubt it. Otherwise, these people really aren't Democrats and, apparently, don't think Shrub and company have done much damage to the nation.

I really can't understand (other than the fact the most Americans are lazy and can't really be bothered to pay attention to national politics) how at this point in time that 75% of those people who vote wouldn't be looking for anyone as long as he or she wasn't a Rethug, particularly their two front runners who seem to be comfortable with the twin plank platform of more tax cuts and more war. I mean, why not? It's work so well for the last six years.

This is marginally off-topic, but one thing that is never mentioned is Hillary the person. I just watched a whole bunch of videos online of interviews she gave (including appearances on Ellen, Letterman and The View) and I gotta say, she seems like a genuinely cool person. Very nice! In fact, I honestly would prefer to spend time with her rather than with Obama (whose professorial attitude is way too wishy-washy for me) or Edwards (too passionate/angry). She seems pragmatic, and I think that's really the best character trait we can have in a leader.

I grew up in the South, Alabama specifically. I've traveled throughout the state and Mississippi and a few parts of Georgia.

The Dems are kidding if they think they can carry Alabama or Mississippi or Georgia or even Tennessee with any Democrat. It just won't happen. There are too many hard-core Evangelicals in the rural areas, and unfortunately too many racist-minded people in the rural South. I know. I grew up amidst them. It just won't happen.

The Dems can win without carrying the South. Hillary knows this, and she's banking on carrying all of the high-electoral-vote states except Texas and maybe Florida.

There are other reasons not to vote for Hillary. This is not one of them.

Hear, hear. The hell with the deep south. And I'm a South Carolinian. Let the Republican party dwindle down to being a regional, minor party. There is not a single blue state that the R's can turn red in the next election and we are likely to take Ohio as well as some of the western states. That's enough to win and that is all that matters.

Those who think Obama or Edwards have a chance down here are fooling yourselves. Heck, Edwards couldn't get elected twice to the SENATE from North Carolina.

HRC isn't the candidate I really want the Democrats to nominate, but I'm much less concerned about her ability to win the general election than others seem to be. No, she wouldn't win many southern states, but Kevin's right: neither would any Democrat. I think she actually has a decent shot at Florida, and maybe even Arkansas. Perhaps even Kentucky if the voters decide to throw all the Republican bums out.

And when people say she is "despised" across the South, I sometimes think they are talking just about white men. I think she's probably much better liked by minorities and women.

So what? Can you name me a Democrat who these cretins don't reflexively hate? We need to quit being afraid of our own shadows. We don't need the goddamn troglodyte 24-percenter vote. 2006 showed us that and we're in much better position now.

I have confidence in Hillary's ability to paint a Giuliani presidency as a third Bush presidency and that's all we need. Falling for the Rovian trash-talk about how a Hillary juggernaut will, like, totally backfire is just fucking sad.

The Republicans renominated a divisive, polarizing, "hated" President and Vice President person in 2004 and that I seem to recall those two winning that election…

That comment wasn't directed at Kevin, BTW. It's directed to all these people posting anecdotes about Hillary-hatred.

I recommend you ask these "Death before Hillary" people what they think about the Iraq war, and when they respond with something like "I think we ought to nuke the whole goddamn country" then you will be enlightened as to the rationality and importance of these individuals.

The idea that it's "almost impossible" for a Dem to write off the South and win the election is one that dies hard, but has truly no basis. Had Kerry won Ohio, he'd be the incumbent. Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico are all more likely converts than any Southern state...except Arkansas (where I'd say Hillary has a decent chance) or Florida, which Dems can win not because of the parts that are Southern but because of the parts that are not. I'd say it'll be harder for any GOPer to win a battleground state in this environment than for any Dem (including Hillary) to snatch some of those others.

I understand your "we've got to stop relying on Southern boys" stance about Edwards -- I'd really hoped Kerry could pull it off last time if only to end that myth -- but on the other hand I consider Edwards not just the strongest candidate but the best (i.e., most likely to push in the direction I -- and, I'd argue, much of the electorate -- want). To go back to your earlier post: the reason Edwards seems like a less than full presence in the election is the prss decided long ago that there were only two Dem candidates and their names are Clinton and Obama. Why progressive voters continue their poll-flirtation with Obama (based on one, admittedly great speech) and Hillary (based on -- what? -- Bill nostalgia and gender identification?) when there's such a splendid candidate right in front of them is beyond me.

But I think any Democrat is going to win next year. Despite media belief that elections are jump balls based on candidate personality, evidence suggests they're determined by circumstance -- and, given the already dire circumstances surrounding the administration (with a recession almost surely to come by next November), it's going to impossible for the GOP to hold its incumbency.

Krugman wrote last week that in the 1970s, the percentage of white Northern men who voted Democratic was 40%. In the last election, it was 39%. What's changed is that white Southern men now vote Republican -- ths is the essence of the Southern strategy. All those angry Southern white men (of all socio-economic classes) who have watched what they considered their priveleges in life taken away by women, minorities and now immigrants support Republicans. There is NO WAY these folks can be turned around. So we have to concentrate getting whatever blue voters we can in the South and winning some key battleground states, as well as retaining the northeast and northwest.

Regardless of the Democratic nominee, picking up more Midwestern or Mountain-West is the key. And it is within our grasp. Even the land-of-Goldwater [Arizona] is becoming a blue State!

JH is right. There is a strong visceral dislike for Hillary. It is not just confined to the south. The same country-music-listening, pickup-driving, hunters and fishermen are important voters in Michigan and Maine and Ohio and Pennsylvania. You have to really know people and know this country to realize she can't win.

The inability to understand and take into account the way people think and feel who probably did not go to college, don't have professional jobs, haven't traveled and work blue collar jobs will doom us to another Republican regime. Dismissing their concerns and the way they vote is dangerous and also downright snobbery.

It's pure snobbery that is causing some Dems to dismiss Edwards and the concerns of people who wear flip-flops and shop at Wal-Mart. Edwards gets it. And its not about being from the south it's about knowing the lives of people who didn't have advantages and being able to reach them.

Hillary can't and Obama can't. Too busy with photo shoots for Fortune and GQ. They don't get, don't care and haven't done a damn thing for the average middle class person.

Kevin, could you address this in a post somehow...

Recently Zogby had a poll that said that 50% of the people polled would never vote for Hillary. Everyone made a stink about that.

However, The most recent LA Times poll in theoretical matchups pitting hypothetical democratic nominees up against GOP nominees....Hillary wins every possible matchup.

These two polls cannot be true.

That is why hate the anecdotes about My friend hates candidate X and they would never vote for them....and then people try to extrapolate into how the person would do in a nationwide election.

Yes I know there may be regional differences that may cause Hillary to lose certain states...but it is frustrating to hear anecdotes, and then start to hear the CW that flows from the anectdotes that so and so cannot win there....so they don't even try.

It is almost impossible for a Democratic candidate to write off the South and win the general election by "running the table."

That statement is flat wrong. The "South" is a total of 134 electoral votes.

The southwest and midwest are trending Democratic.

California, the Northwest, East coast and the Rustbelt are solid.

Fuck...the...South.

They take in more federal dollars than they give out. I'm sick of hearing southerners wail about the "guvmint" while slurping on it's teet.

It's time to put this particular piece of conventional wisdom to bed. (Kevin)

Okay, you convinced me. I'll vote for Dodd.

It's all relative. The Republican will have higher negatives than the Democrat in 2008. Hillary will take Kerry plus Virginia, Arkansas, Colorado, Montana.

Is it okay if I continue to support Edwards because I agree with him most on the issues?

That's got to be the dumbest reason yet to not support a candidate. We just had a non-southern candidate in 2004. And Gore, although from Tennessee, was not really perceived as southerner. Dukasis wasn't southern, nor Mondale.

And I'm not saying that's the reason Clinton won. My point is just that only one Democratic candidate out of the last five was southern. If this is the conventional wisdom, we haven't been following it very well.

Edit:

These two polls *BOTH* cannot be true.

I think Kevin is wrong and so is JH.

My Sonoran Desert view is that whomever holds the second chair on the ticket, will ultimately be who pulls it off for the Democrats. No presidential candidate can pull off this next election on his or her own. Thus, the second seat becomes far more critical than the Conventional Wisdom suggests.

Consider the following:

1. Governor Napolitano managed to get Republican women to vote for her. Thus, the CW in the South generically posits the view of the Southern Male, and with far less emphasis on the Female.

2. And here in Arizona, we, as Chicanos, are looking to see who is being described in the soon to be sweepstakes for the Second Seat.

Notwithstanding the many possible candidacies or the roster for the final selection, the following names and persons will not be included, and for obvious reasons--that is, the Mississippi River mindset will prevail.

Can you 'visualize' a Hillary Clinton selecting one of the following for the Second Seat? How about Barack Obama? How about John Edwards?

a) Nydia Velasquez (NY-12)
b) Hilda Solis (CA-32)
c) Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
d) Linda Sanchez (CA-39)
e) Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
f) Grace Napolitano (CA-38)

Just thought I would offer up a handful of names that will become far more important to us in the future, and as such, are important to our Spanish-language speaking communities today and for the short term.

Jaango
Chicano Veterans Organization

I'm guessing your friend from Virginia, in saying "the problem is that Hillary is despised throughout the South", is obviously speaking about only white Southerns. So his comment seems to me to be very much a bogus ethnocentric analysis.

I wouldn't vote for Senator Clinton, either, unless she were running against any of the current crop of Republican candidates, except maybe Ron Paul.

Florida too

I wonder how INTELLIGENT Hillary really is. Thing is: does her two-note tune handling all questions -- answer straightforwardly about anything her handlers want her to discuss; and talk widely around any topic they think it is in her interest to avoid -- signal a lack of FLEXIBILITY? IOW, shouldn't someone who is truly equipped to be president of the US be a better liar? Wouldn't it be in her interest to look less like the programmed political robot she looks like -- if she were able to do so?

I think Mrs. Clinton is as smart as anyone, but she doesn't have the bat-radar to take this country in the direction we need to go. She's too much of a player without any real identification with her base: women, minorities, working middle class.

She takes too much money from lobbyists to be able to govern with reason and principle, as she is showing now on the telecom "amnesty" issue.

She doesn't want to support any issue that isn't a clear winner, even if it would be a winner if she would only get out in front on it.

The Southerners would be wise to vote against her. I am an ardent liberal Democrat, but I don't think I can vote for her if she gets the nomination. I know that would be playing right into the Republicans' hands, too, which is why their noise machine is drowning out every Democratic name but hers. But I just can't vote for somebody I feel is so ill-suited to be President.

On the other hand, wasn't she a Southerner until she moved to New York seven or eight years ago?

She has the same problem as Bush. She's somebody who lacks enough popular support to really succeed without big media and big money spin, hype. They're ramming her down our throats, and if she gets in, the country will be utterly divided, and the Congress can bicker and point fingers for four years while the aristocracy goes on looting the treasury.

The Republicans all hate the Clintons, and the Clintons have shown they respond to that by giving the Republicans everything they want.

Who's the Socialist candidate?

Debra is wrong. The south is ripe for the pickin'. People here have been screwed just like everyone else and are sick of the corruption and lies. It just takes someone who gets what their lives are like and cares to get their vote.

Slamming Republicans won't help Democrats. They'll get mauled by the press for it.

Problem isn't that they aren't assertive. Problem is that Republicans own the media, literally. Further problems is repeal of Fairness Doctrine, thanks to Reagan. Fix those things and you solve the media problem for progressives.

Also a problem that some Democrats are complicit members of the oligarchy themselves. It was Democratic majorities that made Jimmy Carter's presidency impossible. Also same majorities that threw open the doors of Congress to Wall Street when Reagan won his first term.

As to Gore, Greg Palast says that the Gore/Perot debate was a colossal blunder on Gore's part. According to Palast, Perot represented 19 million voters scared to pieces about NAFTA and clearly not happy with Republicans. Inviting those 19 million into the Democratic party would have given the Democrats tamper-proof majorities for generations. Instead, Palast says Gore treated Perot with contempt, and thereby alienated all those voters.

I think that is when the press went feral on Gore. I'm not saying it's wise or okay, but I think taking responsibility for our actions is one of the things that distinguishes us from Republicans in the first place.

I am sick to death of the entire South. I lived for years in Richmond, Virginia, which is really an eccentric and amusing society in a lot of ways, but the politics there are absolutely twisted and the moral values of the electorate are just appalling. I do think it's time the Democrats simply wrote off the entire region on the national level, and not just because campaigning heavily there is a waste of money and resources. There is a more important reason, and here it is:

The entire sick value structure of the Southerner is precisely what has gone wrong with American politics, and it needs to be exposed AND REPUDIATED. Those values include the obvious ones, such as pious public religiosity (as opposed to genuine spiritual feeling), tribal us v. them behavior, knee-jerk hatred of the "other", who ever the "other" du jour is (gays? Arabs? who cares, they don't go to mah church).

And most importantly, the credo of the south is FYIGM. And it always has been: the Republicans didn't invent it, though they have surely played it like the proverbial harp. That is the root of the antitax fervor of these people, as well as the anti-welfare, anti-"socialist" attitudes that distort and destroy every decent chance at liberal solutions to intractable problems. Remember, LBJ and even FDR had to buy off these people by making social programs middle-class-inclusive, because otherwise the southern mind says "why am ah payin' mah salary fer them no-count Yankee deadbeats?"

It is time to repudiate EVERYTHING about the culture of the South, let the Republicans have the place, and when they want to grow up and once again join the United States, they can bloody well adapt to OUR culture instead of shoving theirs down everyone's throat.

I think there's a serious risk that in order to prove she's strong on national security, Hillary will do stupid, aggressive things: tolerating rendition and torture, airstrikes in Iran that drag us into a war, that sort of thing.

I'm very uncomfortable with her and would go so far as to say she may be dangerous.

Yes, let's crush this myth about Dems needing to nominate a southerner by nominating yet another northerner who will lose. Why not sacrifice 4 more years in an attempt in to disprove a myth.

Look at the polls, Kevin. While "electability" is a sore substitute for support on the issues, Edwards is the most electable Dem candidate. Fortunately for me, he also has the best positions on the issues, so it's a no-brainer to support him.

George Will said that if Arizona elects a dem, and AZ being a purple state - that's who will wins the election, and I don't like George Will but he was right about that, because of course Arizona pick Bill Clinton over Bush, the Sr.

So sorry, this just ain't true.

It is almost impossible for a Democratic candidate to write off the South and win the general election

That's bullshit.

The South is the reason for "no child left behind" because in may ways, Southern states were left behind. It was people moving from the North to the South (the sun belt) that discovered the schools were far "less" in quality then their Northern counterparts that thus gave birth to the NO child left behind programs.

Why does rural individuals vote conservative while white collar metros do NOT.

Ignorance or the lack thereof, that's why!

Liberals hate President Bush because he started the Iraq War, yet they are on the verge of handing the presidential nomination Hillary Clinton, who voted for and supported the same Iraq War for years.

What does the Democratic Party stand for again?

All this "We can ditch the South and still win" talk is getting to me. Far from it being the conventional wisdom that the Dems can't win without the South, it's become the conventional wisdom *in the blogosphere* that (a) the white southern vote is incorrigible and (b) not really necessary. But remember--The Democrats haven't won with a nonsouthern candidate since JFK--might-have-been scenarios don't cut it. Moreover--and it's tiresome to repeat it, but it never seems to sink in--even white southerners haven't been heavily Republican all that long. The notion that all the segs switched over from the Democrats to the Republicans en masse at the time of the Civil Rights movement is historical balderdash. The white southern shift toward the Republicans was a long and complicated process, reaching a peak in 1994 and not moving appreciably further since. Will whites in AL and MS never vote for a Democrat? Then why do Democrats control one legislative house in MS and both in AL? Dems are in fact in striking distance all across the region, if you people are willing to suppress your cultural snobbery [Yes, that's what it is] long enough to think about how to do it.

Actually, all HRC needs to do is take the states Kerry did and not have one of those states stolen via election fraud.

As long as that happens, the racists and evangelicals (including those with whom I work and whom I live close to) can kiss my skinny, white, border state ass.

Can we reconsider the Civil War and let the South go ahead and secede? Boy would we be better off if Texas hadn't been part of the US of A in 2000.

All of you are forgetting about Arkansas, the one southern state Hillary can carry. I don't think the hatred is deep there as it's elsewhere.

Giuliani is the frightening candidate.

So I'm the only one here who thinks another Clinton administration would still be half-Southern half-Republicans?

"Edit:

These two polls *BOTH* cannot be true."

Edit:

These two polls cannot "BOTH" be true.

Unless you truly mean neither poll can be true.

Second, and more important, I don't think any Dem is likely to win in the South, Edwards included.

The issue isn't whether any Dem is likely to win in the South, but whether any Dem is likely to compete in the South (win a few states, make the Republican nominee work to hold the rest.)

Basically, Democrats need to win the states Kerry won plus a few more in the Midwest and Mountain West

The Democratic nominee might need only that to get into the White House, the Democrats need more than that if they are going to be effective in turning around the mess that Republicans have made.

and all three of the leading Dems are equally capable of doing that.

I doubt that, though I might agree that its not really clear which is most capable of that right now.

On a broader note, I almost consider this a reason not to support Edwards. One way or another, Democrats have to get away from the trap of believing that the only way to win the presidency is to nominate a Southerner.

The problem JH points to with Hillary is not that the former first lady of Arkansas is not a Southerner, its that she is despised in the South. The idea JH is proposing is that a viable candidate must be able to compete in the South, not that the candidate must be from the South.

Certainly, the candidate JH points to as the best choice in this election is from the South, but that's not the factor JH identifies. So, by suggesting that what JH points to is a reason not to support Edwards, you are missing JH's point entirely to take a stab at a well-worn bit of conventional wisdom. Are you, like the big media talking-heads, so caught up in conventional narratives that you prefer them to the actual issues in front of you?

HRC cannot even bring in the states that Kerry got. She won't even be able to take Michigan if Romney wins. HRC's neocon alliances would likely alienate the large Arab vote. NAFTA is a big problem for her there. The southwest will be problematic for her because of her pro-amnesty stance. She is a complete disaster waiting to happen.

Um, does this Virginia friend of yours ever have anything, oh, I don't know, SMART to say?

I'm tired of seeing Democrats pander to people who will NEVER like them or vote for them. And the more I hear Republican pundits on television say that the Democrats need to start pandering to these folks, the more I am absolutely convinced it's a horrendous idea.

In 2006, Democrats took a different tack from this and finally decided to speak out about what they believed in -- even in the reddest red states like Montana, and semi-red states like Virginia -- and they were rewarded at the polls for it. (Yes, they've become spineless wimps now that they're in there, but when they were running, they actually acted as if they represented real, constructive change.)

Unless Huckabee's the Republican, it seems hard to believe Hillary wouldn't pick up Arkansas, and maybe a border state or two. People who've swallowed the wingnut Kool-Aid on Hillary will never vote for any Democrat, and they should be written off as the mouthbreathers they are; meanwhile, the Democrats should bust their asses getting every one of "their" voters to the polls to counter these folks. Dance with the gal who brung ya, and screw the Old South -- at least those states that will never change.

Think of it this way: do you believe that Republicans are worried that they must put up a candidate who can win in the Northeast and the West coast, otherwise they are doomed?

Of course not. They know the battleground is elsewhere.

And they know that their base would never forgive them for putting up a candidate who would have to cater to the sensibilities of the Northeast and the West coast.

Why should Democrats give any kind of basic shit about the South?

Here's a clue frankl0: the electoral college.

The south is ripe for the pickin'.

Posted by: Chrissy

I agree with this. If HRC is the nominee, I think her choice of running mate could make a big difference here.

Drum: One way or another, Democrats have to get away from the trap of believing that the only way to win the presidency is to nominate a Southerner.

You know, I personally won't have too much of a problem voting for any of the Dem presidential candidates over any of the Repub ones...but the Democratic party candidates have to win in '08 or a lot of the bad shit that's happened under (or as a result of) Dubya's administration is just gonna get continued and institutionalized.

If supporting Clinton puts Dem wins in '08 in jeopardy, I can see how Kev's pen pal JH worries about a Clinton nomination...The stakes are just too high for failure.

People, if HRC were less electable than BO or JE, then she would have lower matchup numbers in polls than these two. In fact, she does better. BTW, I am not a knee jerk Hillary backer. I prefer Edwards, but.....

Chrissy, you're almost out to lunch, wrong on every assertion you make. Edwards, unfortunately, is NOT scoring with anyone but the rural poor and a slice of the creative class. He is stalled. Mitt Romney is not popular in MI. Dems have no shot in the South. Wake up.

Chrissy, PROVE that the South is in reach. Show recent polls, across multiple States. You can't.

Simple path to Democratic dominance: double the size of the house of representatives.

People, if HRC were less electable than BO or JE, then she would have lower matchup numbers in polls than these two.

That's only necessarily true if the election is being held today (taking as given that the polls are perfectly reliable.)

Hillary is also despised in Missouri. Around here you'll hear the dittoheads make fun of Obama's name, or Edwards' haircut, but they generally shrug their shoulders. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, sends them into a frenzy. She is the only one of the big 3 Dems that excite the Republican base in the wrong way.

If nominated Hillary is going to win. She is going to win big. Two Thousand Eight is going to be a Democratic year. The public is absolutely sick of the politics of hate, fear and greed. Unless they nominate Huckabee the Republicans don't have a single candidate capable of articulating a positive message. Hating Hillary will only take the Republicans so far, and that isn't far enough.

The real question facing Democrats is whether Hillary is up to being an effective change agent. So far I have seen precious little evidence that she isn't just like her husband who was fully capable of talking about change, but scared silly about pushing it.

Hillary, like Bill, is a wonderful campaigner, but I am not yet sure she is capable of being more than an average President. Of course, after the last 7 years an average President will seem like the reincarnation of FDR.

If Hillary were to do some extended bus tours throughout the South -- small town to small town, a la her 'listening tour' in upstate NY -- she could change the perception of her. Contrary to conventional wisdom, my guess is she'd be received like a 'rock star' and would get a fair hearing. Additionally, a unifying message of 'one America north and south' would stroke the Villager's erogenous zones and play well nationally.

Frank C: Mitt Romney's father was governor of Michigan. May not carry a lot of weight - but I bet he knows the state and the voters in ways HRC does not. He also has a physical appeal HRC does not. Mighigan also has a large population of hunters, the NRA belonging kind, that are not going to vote for Hillary. Hillary has alienated large groups of voters. If you think she's electable then you're out to lunch.

Also you should check out the Wilder Effect or the Bradley Effect in voting. People simply do not admit their own biases when polls involve gender and race. It's not right but it is a fact.

As regards Edwards, he has faced a tremendous bias from the media and the press. Probably some of it is snobbery and an infatuation with the two hyped and flashy candidates, HRC and BO.

Some people have a visceral response to Hillary Clinton simply because she has been demonized for over a decade. It was done intentionally to inoculate voters against a clearly powerful and ambitious opposition politician. Her politics are really quite close to the Southern norm, with a few important differences, that is why the Blue Dog dems are among her biggest supporters.

The wedge issues that make a difference are actually becoming a problem for the Republican party. They cater to a diminishing demographic in what was once a homogeneous South and what has been called the suburban secession there and elsewhere. One would have to run the numbers to really know which states besides South Carolina and Idaho the dems should write off, but there is much that can be done in some valuable Southern states.

Clearly a great deal is out of reach electorally. The value will come with a stronger rhetorical rejection of what the Gingrich revolution and George Bush, the ultimate Southern president, have stood for- low tax, low investment crony capital Southernomics, that old time religion "values voting", elitist authoritarian politics, voting fraud, fear of diversity and militarism.

Frank C, check out the SurveyUSA polling data. Edwards beats the tar out of the Republicans in a state like Oklahoma. Oklahoma in case you don't know is home to Oral Roberts University - the fundie mecca. This has been beyond the reach of Dems for decades.

It's not just the south.

What makes people assume that no one will ever change their minds about Hillary. My parents moved from Virginia to New York, and my extremely stubborn mother swore she'd never vote for Hillary. My Rockefeller Republican father wasn't as adamant, but wasn't a fan either.

Needless to say, they both wound up voting for her.

No, the Dems shouldn't "depend" upon a Southerner to crack the Rupublican's sway in the South or to win the Prez election. What they need to do is break the spell that the Repubs have cast over the the South and much of rural America. There is an extreme disconnect between what the Repubs do and how it affects the South. They mouth the hot button topics (gays, abortion, guns) to cloud people's perception and then implement policies that directly harm those in the South.

The irony here is that people advocate Clinton over Edwards as a way to thumb their nose at this perceived "dependence" on the South. But what they are doing is placing a DC insider in the lead role and someone who will probably not be able to wipe the fog that Repubs have placed over Southerners.

The real benefit of Edwards as a Dem candidate or Prez, is that he is more suited to show Southerners how they have been used, sacrificing their well-being for a few talking-point boogymen. The benefit would have a longer lasting effect and hopefully change the balkinization of red vs. blue America.

This brings up something that really bugs me about my fellow Dems. We have a tendency, as displayed catastrophically in the 2004 primaries, to vote for people that we think OTHER people will like. Where is the sense in this?

As a Dean fan in 2004, I was told repeatedly by other Dean supporters that while they supported Dean and thought he was the best candidate, they were voting for Kerry because they thought he was the one most able to win. In essence, they were subverting their own judgement and placing themselves outside of what they perceived the majority to be.

There's already enough compromise in politics. I'm going to try to nominate the person who represents my vision of America and I'll trust everyone else to do the same.

"Here's a clue frankl0: the electoral college."

The Democrats don't need the deep south, or Oklahoma, to win the electoral college. You simply have no data to back up your assertions about Clinton's lack of electability. As for Michigan, forget it; it's not going to go Republican.

Hillary is also despised in Missouri. Around here you'll hear the dittoheads make fun of Obama's name, or Edwards' haircut, but they generally shrug their shoulders. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, sends them into a frenzy. She is the only one of the big 3 Dems that excite the Republican base in the wrong way.

I was actually quite taken aback last month when we went to the country for bow season (we live in KC most of the time) at the lack of vitriol the folks up there had for Hillary. Of course the dittoheads are unreachable, but the folks that have previously been painted with the "Reagan Democrat" brush are stunningly receptive to her.

The constituency that she has that is surprising me is among the young men the age of our son (he is 24). I don't know if it is a unique phenomenon among him and his friends, but I find it amusing - and heartening to listen to a gaggle of young men swooning over a 60 year old woman.

I don't see how any liberal, once learning Hillary's positions on issues, could vote for her.

For whatever it's worth, I live in South Carolina, surrounded by Republicans, and I have heard several male Republican friends say they don't dislike HC and would consider voting for her. Maybe they like her because she projects competence, or because the media obviously hate her. (My Democratic buddies all dislike her)

Even my hardcore formerly war-supporting Republican father recently called Bush a "bozo," said we need to get the hell out of Iraq, and that he was thinking about voting for Hillary.

Heck, at the rate she's going, she may get more votes from Republicans than from Democrats.

Very few Hillary haters are going to vote for a democrat. They will find a reason to vote otherwise. We are talking about bigoted people here. They may vote for a third party candidate, not vote at all, or talk themselves into voting for a Republican that they have reservations about.

So, forget it. A democrat will not carry the South, Kevin is right about that. At some point in the future I hope this will change. But that day is not here.

OTOH, a democrat, including Hillary, has a chance in Florida and the border states right now.

It's pure snobbery that is causing some Dems to dismiss Edwards...

Bullshit. I dismiss Edwards, despite finding him very appealing in all sorts of ways, because he's run a shitty campaign. And now Obama is blowing it as well. Clinton is my least favorite of the three, but she's had the most disciplined and effective campaign so far, and that counts for a lot.

"Basically, Democrats need to win the states Kerry won plus a few more in the Midwest and Mountain West, and all three of the leading Dems are equally capable of doing that."

I'm so, so happy someone is acknowledging the facts. The South is a ball and chain. Dem's can win without it. And a Democratic win would give the Southerners a chance to develop some humility for a change.

CT: a Democratic win would give the Southerners a chance to develop some humility for a change.

You'd think that the Civil War would've done that, but nooo, they're still extracting their revenge.

Presidential elections are won state-by-state.

Consider this - the entire world could have been spared the Bush maladministrtion if Missouri had gone the other way in 2000 - and only 80,000 votes separated the candidates of over 2 million cast. The GOP had those 80,000 because they had the GOTV playbook, and we didn't yet have the netroots.

It's a different ballgame this time, and I am sensing a pragmatism that I have never seen before. The Missouri 6 is going to flip, and I believe that the state will go to the Democrats next year. There are two huge bastions of liberalism in this state, with Columbia in the middle, and enough people pissed off at Matt Blunt and George Bush in the smaller, more rural counties to flip it.

Maybe not before the SCHIP fiasco, but now, definitely. There are still a lot of family farms up there, and those kids are covered by it.

Sam Graves followed George Bush off a cliff, and that flips us from 5/4 advantage Republicans to 5/4 advantage Democrats in the House.

And Jay Nixon is going to whoop Matt Blunt's scrawny ass and be the next governor, too.

Missouri has always been unique, and at least in the 6th, there is the potential that the state and local races will buoy the Democratic nominee.

The political map around here right now is the strangest damned thing I've ever seen without chemical assistance.

[broken link fixed --mod]

PaulB:
Does it concern you that we could lose Senate races in places like Oklahoma and Texas(not to mention some other states) because of Hillary? Besides, she is not a liberal's best friend anyway. Can you trust someone that was easily fooled by The Decider(and who couldn't be bothered to read the NIE .. when Graham of FL told her to read it).

Setting aside Florida (which involves far different voting blocs than does the rest of the South), which Southern states are more likely to flip blue than: (1) Iowa, (2) New Mexico, (3) Colorado, (4) Ohio, (5) Nevada, (6) Arizona, (7) Missouri, (8) Montana?

I mean, I guess I could see the argument that the right candidate slides Virginia ahead of Missouri, MAYBE Arizona, but that's still not even in the top 5 -- and the top five includes a state that would singlehandedly flip the election, as well as a medium-populous state (CO) that would probably drag two of the other top 5 with it (NM and NV) if it turned blue. And this doesn't even take into account Florida, which also would flip the election, and which would probably slide in right around Colorado on the list.

It's not a question of abandoning the South or not abandoning the South. It's a question of devoting your resources to the more-likely-to-flip states. And in my book, that's Ohio, Florida, and the Four Corners states (especially CO.

HRC does enrage conservatives and they do hate here. As some one familiar with conservative southerners and red necks in general, my experience is that they hate HRC passionately. But remember, when the Republican smear machine goes into gear, it won't matter who the democratic candidate is. But, in terms of the Iraq war and Iran, HRC will carry on the neocon agenda so she will get some help from those quarters.

Survey USA (has your Va. correspondent not seen this?) shows that in Va. the worst Hillary v. GOP matchup to be against Rudy--and they're essentially a dead heat. She's considerably stronger against the others. Northern Va. would be strong for her (although immigration is a wild card), and she'd likely carry the minority strongholds in Tidewater.

Heck, at the rate she's going, she may get more votes from Republicans than from Democrats.

I find it funny that professional political operatives who travel to all the states and conduct polls can't predict a winning strategy yet bloggers whose opinions are formed by the last opinion they heard are going to vote based on who they think has a better chance of beating the other guy.

And we wonder why our government and elections are all screwed up.

Vote for the candidate who best represents your point of view.

Me, a liberal, could never vote for Hillary Clinton because she is farther to the right than her husband was, and that's saying something. The path for what Bush has done was laid by Clinton and his BFF, Bush1. It was Clinton's Telecommunications' Act that set the stage further media consolidation under Bush, and NAFTA sent the first wave of white male management baby boomers into retirement at age 50 to become associates on the floors of Home Depot.

Hillary's votes in the Senate have been shockingly ignorant for a Democrat or understandable for a conservative. In interviews, she's got the art of saying absolutely nothing with the greatest number of words down pat. She's better at it than her husband.

If all I had to go on was her record, that would be enough. But I also have the memory of how Republicans were able to stop this country's business for years with the Clintons in the White House and I am not about to help that happen again. This week, a new book was released - Gerald Ford, from the grave, says that Bill Clinton is a sex addict who should be in treatment.

No, I do not want another 4-8 years of that again.

P.S.

Last week, Bill Clinton's "How dare you!" to those hecklers really offended me.

I don't know if 9/11 was a false flag operation by Bush, or if he knew ahead of time and did nothing, or if it was 19 Arabs from the Middle East. But I know that the 9/11 Commission was a farce, and that there are way too many unanswered questions for Bill Clinton or anybody getting on a high horse and daring people who are demanding answers from their government to justify themselves.

That alone is enough for me to never vote for anyone who would support Hillary, too.

Kevin, can I ask an impertinent question about Democratic candidates? It seems the media is intent on giving voters only three choices on the Democratic side (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) rather than simply report on the six or seven major Democratic candidates and waiting until people vote before winnowing the field.

I notice that you also limit your focus to Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. Is that deliberate? Did I miss a post where you discuss what invalidates Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich? I think Dodd, for example, has a lot of qualities equal or possibly better (hard to tell) than the three Dems the media has picked. But the argument that voters should decide and the media should simply report on any serious candidate (however you define that term), that is still valid.

If this topic interests you, I'd like to hear your response, in this post or some other time. Thx.

A lot of the post regarding the feasibility of Hillary as a viable candidate seem to make the assumption that we have a choice, that choice was taken away a long time ago by the mainstreams constant drumbeat for the past 8 years that would be and will be the Democratic candidate.

Hilary is the MSM's choice and make no bones about it, she is the republicans choice because they know they can beat her.

For whatever it's worth, Rasmussen shows her beating Giuliani in Arkansas by a landslide -- apparently she's still as popular there as her hubby -- and running neck and neck with him not only in Florida (the "non-Southern" Southern state) but also in Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee! I don't know whether to believe this, but "Survey USA" also shows her running neck and neck with him in Virginia and Kentucky, and I've recently seen another poll giving her a 6-point lead over him in West Virginia (despite its recent sharp lurch toward the GOP).

In any case, Kevin's main thesis is correct: the Dems need to focus, quite simply, on the states they're most likely to pick up compared to the last two races, and most of those aren't in the South -- they're Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, and maybe West Virginia. Anything else is gray, and it's clear that the South is going to be the core of GOP support for a long time to come -- just as it was the core of Democratic support for a long time, which didn't stop the GOP from winning election after election in those days.

Make that: "Anything else is gravy".

"The public is absolutely sick of the politics of hate, fear and greed"

Yea, right, that why 52% of the population supports bombing Iran and another 20% don;t have an opinion.

Speaking of bigots, as did someone up the thread in reference to Southerns, I have certainly read lots of bigoted comments here relating to the South and Southerns.

Just win all the states Kerry won plus Ohio.
That's all we need. Don't need the Southern states to win the election.

Hillary is also despised in Missouri.

Hillary was winning in named head-to-heads against all GOP candidates in Missouri, according to a SurveyUSA poll last week...

Tom In Maine: Hilary ... is the republicans choice because they know they can beat her.

Nonsense. Hillary is the Republican's choice because Goldwater girls never really stray.

sullijan screv:

> Dance with the gal who brung ya,

Well, I reckon I'm a progressive, like that big ol' Texas gal Molly Ivins, and since I came to this party with Molly Ivins, I might should pay attention to what she had to say about Sen. Clinton.

And what she had to say was this:

I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for President.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges. ...

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF? ...

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

And that's why I've been an Edwards supporter, and am leaning Dodd.

Rusty
I'm questioning if you are a liberal or not.
First, I really don't think Bill Clinton's sexual appetite matters anymore except that a few conservatives will bring it up if Hillary gets the nomination.
Second, why would any Democrat choose not to vote for the Democratic ticket due to the way Republicans stopped business for years [which I must say I don't recall] in the 90's??
Third and unrelated, Bill Clinton was questioning 9/11 conspiracy theory nuts - not people questioning goverment. There is a difference. I too believe the 9/11 Commission had problems but even though that opens the flood gates to the views of conspiracy nuts it doesn't legitimize their view.

joel hanes: I came to this party with Molly Ivins, I might should pay attention to what she had to say about Sen. Clinton.

You remind me just how much this Yankee misses Molly. If half of Texas was like her I'd start flying the Lone Star flag.

Both Edwards and Obama, gaffes aside, are better speakers, more attractive personalities, and better at taking strong stances on policy issues than HRC.

HRC will be an ok president, but will fail to change the game. Everyone's sucking up to her because of her huge national poll leads, and because she hasn't made any mistakes. But we need more from a leader than "never taking any risks, saying anything controversial, or supporting any liberal positions, therefore not making "mistakes"". We need someone willing to fight for more than their survival.

Hilary Clinton is too much of an insider and it's irreversible. Frankly, I'd almost rather vote for a Republican.

That's why I'm voting for Obama- not that the last month haven't revealed a few flaws - but because he's the only one who has a shot at beating her.

It's almost impossible that anyone else can move far enough ahead in numbers and name recognition. Everyone other than Hilary and Obama, thanks to the polls, might as well not exist.

Sad, but true.

I know at least 500 Democrats here in upstate NY, and not a single one of them is excited about Hilary as a Presidential candidate.

That ought to tell us something about how well she would be received in the South.

I'm not supporting Edwards because he's a southerner (I could care less where he's from); I'm supporting him because he's clearly the most progressive of the three major Democratic candidates, particularly on economic issues. Perhaps that's what scary about him to some of the upper-class Democrats, the hedge-fund crowd.

I agree with Kevin that Edwards wins maybe VA or NC at best in the South. The political calculation though has to be how may Senate seats do the Dems not win if Clinton is the nominee?
The plus three Senators you get with Edwards at as your candidate are worth a lot more than +13 electoral votes he wins in the South.

Hello, reporting from semi-rural NC.

Edwards couldn't win a barbeque-eating contest here. Nor could either of the other two D biggies. Debra is absolutely right – the majority of voters in the South are best ignored by the D's, at least for another generation. It's not snobbery to note the hatred of all things not white, male and aggressively ignorant here.

I said "for whatever it's worth," Rusty. I don't pretend to be a prognosticator. Sheesh.

My point is that she's not as hated by certain people I personally know (i.e., white Southern Republican males) as I would expect based on the CW. I know that's purely anecdotal and I'm sure plent of other people hate her enough to make up for the people who (surprisingly, to me) don't hate her.

I won't be voting for her in the primary. But if she's the nominee, by God I'll vote for her before I'd vote for anyone on the GOP ticket.

Chrissy: "HRC cannot even bring in the states that Kerry got. She won't even be able to take Michigan if Romney wins."

I know his dad was governor--40 years ago. His memory in this state is zilch. Far more popular and respected is Bill Milliken, his successor, longest serving Michigan governor and Ripon Society Republican.
Look at our Governor, look at our Senators. And forget the NRA; they're outnumbered 3 to 1 by Black and Hispanic voters.
It's a mistake to listen to gasbag radio and assume it's the voice of the nation. It's the diehard 24% that would vote for Bush if he was running against Reagan.

O. K....you'all have convinced me, Dems hate the South...don't want the southerner vote and think the South should be ignored.

Okey dokey. Guess I will have to vote for the creepy republican.

It is really hysterically funny how the dems and dem chattering class keep nominating the absolute worst cardboard candidates and then blame their loses on the..gasp!...south.

Ever thought about getting a real candidate...hummm?...naw, that is just too much of a challange isn't it?...much easier to follow along like good little serta perfect sheep.

They might do it differently, but any of the top Dem candidates can win against any Repub in the general election.

To me the only question is which would be the better president.

I don't think Obama is a viable candidate, but more than that he's erratic and green.

Name recognition and money are Hillary's strongest weapons, but she equivocates on everything and is obviously going to have to pay back a lot of money.

If the only complaint with Edwards is his hair, then he's got to be doing a lot of other things right. His message is consistent and full of content and he doesn't offend anyone who earns less than $500,000.

It's got to be Edwards, but Obama is splitting the Progressive vote. Obama needs to drop out for Edwards to unite the vote against Hillary.

If Obama stays in and splits the vote, so Hillary can win, then Hillary will re-enact the Kerry race and it won't be a blow-out and we won't crush the Repubs across the board.

I think it's up to Obama's supporters to decide who they would prefer: Clinton or Edwards.

Clinton or Edwards
Edwards or Clinton

choose!

I know at least 500 Democrats here in upstate NY, and not a single one of them is excited about Hilary as a Presidential candidate. That ought to tell us something about how well she would be received in the South. Posted by: global yokel

While that may be true (and this applies to the Michigan comment down thread), there are nearly as many people on the Upper West Side of Manhattan as there are in upstate NY. And it's a good bet that 90% who vote will be voting for the Democratic candidate, regardless.

I live in East Tennessee, a historically Republican part of the South - folks here voted GOP even when the rest of the South was Democratic. I disagree with the sentiment in the email. Sure, Hillary's not liked around her. But neither will be Obama or Edwards. What's interesting is that nobody around here likes Giuliani or Romney either. Ask the average evangelical around here (and there are tons) and they'll say that Rudy and Hillary are two peas in a pod. They're both Yankees. Both "pro-abortion." Both pro-gay rights. Both anti-gunners. The hardcore hawkish schtick doesn't really resonate so strongly here in Appalachia as it does in other parts of the South, so maybe that's why Rudy doesn't get the nudge. The only Republican people here care about is Fred Thompson, for obvious reasons.

Don't count Hillary out in the South. She may get right-wingers angry, but she will also get black and poor voters out to the polls like nobody else will - and there are a LOT of those votes in the South. She will be very competitive - if not the favorite - in Arkansas. She has strong support in Florida - including especially South Florida. She leads virtually every head-to-head poll in Virginia. She may put West Virginia back on the Democratic map. And she may put Kentucky and Tennessee back in the Democratic column - especially if Romney is the GOP nominee. She won't win the Deep South. But she will be more competitive in the Upper South than many people think.

Anecdotally, I had a conversation last weekend with a self-described right-wing Republican the other day and he said the only real beef he has with Clinton is that it will mean Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and we shouldn't have a monarchy. He wasn't particularly bothered by how "liberal" she was or how "calculated" she was. He expects that in any Democrat. He also thinks she'd be a fairly effective President even if he loathes most of her priorities.

Regarding Michigan: an Oct. 17 Rasmussen Poll gives Hillary leads of 7 points over Romney and McCain, 9 points (!) over Giuliani, and 13 over Thompson. If she manages to run even close to the Republican nationwide, Michigan is in the bag for her -- just as it is for any Dem in a close nationwide race (even though the same poll shows Gov. Granholm's popularity sagging badly now).

We are this far into comments and no one has mentioned Schaller's Whistling past Dixie? Wow, you guys need to step it up.

I live in Tennessee on the Cumberland Plateau--as red and as Baptist as it gets. I teach at a branch of Chattanooga State, a small tech school that draws many mid-20 somethings, nearly all white, and very conservative. They think of me as "that liberal."

That said, in my conversations with 20-25 women (wide age range variations), to a one, they have indicated that they cannot wait to vote for Hillary. They identify with her in so many ways--especially what she went through, for being vilified for having the balls to stick with her husband, for having raised a quiet, thoughtful daughter who seems to be okay, and for standing up to a whole passel of mean male bullies.

Shocked the hell out of me. I'm not a big fan of political dynasties, HRC, or corporate Dems, but if she is the nominee, I know where I point my cursor. She can win in the South.

I don't think this issue is an either-or. The Democrats must ``whistle past'' a lot of Dixie but HRC can win VA, WV, and maybe AR. In addition, most polls show her running about even in FL against Guiliani. She can win there. Of course, many people would argue that FL is not really a Southern state, and if you take FL away, the South is only about 110 electoral votes.

My guess is the Democrats can start winning over much of the South again with the health care issue, especially since this is just the type of populist program that would be especially helpful to the working white poor in the South.

So let's win OH and IA in the Midwest, 3 or 4 key WEstern states, and a couple of Southern states. That would give HRC about 325 electoral votes-not a landslide but impressive

The Republican Party proved, from 1860 to 1932, that it was very possible to "write off the South and win the general election by "running the table."

"Ever thought about getting a real candidate"

Dear heart, by all means feel free to tell us what's wrong with Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, etc. We can hardly wait for the pearls of wisdom from you.

Certainly I am tired of Democrats catering to the South's biases and nativism. I have always found the majority of Southerners to be nearly unamerican in their southern chauvinism as though they really don't give a samn about the US, just their own particularly niche. Breaking the patterning of kissing southern ass would thrill me.

But the election is not about telling the South to take a hike or about proving points. It should be about who is the best candidate and whose policies we support. In that realm, Edwards is my favorite by a long shot. His policies simply are better. Obama is disappointingly weak and lacking clarity. Hillary is triangulating to the point of incoherence. The rest, also-rans, despite good proposals and good ideas.

Edwards really is the best choice and if you let your desire to thumb your nose at the south dictate your vote, you are again, not making your own decisions but being guided by the peculiarities of the south.

Clinton was a moderate Republican and they hated his guts. Gore was a populist and they hated his guts. Both from the South. Kerrey stood less of a chance than Clinton or Gore. No way they're going to vote for a Yankee.

If there has ever been a voting segment somewhere in history that has consistently voted against its own best interest more than White Southerners please let me know. I don't think you can give up entirely; particularly if you have some good people on the ground who just need the tools but it should definitely be treated as an after thought at this juncture.

I disagree that the South is a lost cause to Democrats. In Tennessee where I live 3 of the 5 largest cities are decidedly blue. Kerry won both Nashville and Memphis. Tennessee Democrats are looking forward to voting for the Democratic nominee whomever it is. HRC might not be the first choice, but she will get the vote here. She'll have a special advantage over Guiliani who comes off sounding like a nut. Unlike Hillary, who spent decades in Arkansas, Guiliani has spent no time in the South an exhibits the most arrogant "yankee" tendancies that turn off so many southerners.

I'm a liberal Democrat who lives in Virginia. I donate, I read the blogs, I walk door to door. I have worked on every campaign since 1992, and cut my teeth on school board elections in order to keep both non-progressive minded and "protect the taxpayers" off of them. I'm an obsessive political junkie who keeps up with what is going on in DC, state-wide and nation-wide. My family has worked VERY hard to turn Virginia from red to purple, and are working to turn it blue. I also, incidentally, come from a working class background.

And I'm depressed about a Hillary Clinton presidency.

How nice to be told that this is only about "irrational hatred." I couldn't POSSIBLY be expected to have an informed opinion after all, since I'm so stupid as to live in a southern state.

In Virginia, Hillary wins all three of her matchups. She beats Giuliani by 6% (50-44), Thompson by 7% (50-43), and Romney by 15 (53-38).

She reaches 50% against all of them.

http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/09/morning-polls-are-southern-states-ripe.html