Something was confirmed in Dan Fromkin's White House Watch that some of us suspected from '04:
In his Friday WHW he wrote:
"Rove lieutenant Matthew Dowd apparently acknowledged during a conference at Harvard shortly after the 2004 election (that) during the primaries, Rove was considerably more afraid of then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina than of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Dowd said."
Fromkin's lead in to this article is based on his curiousity over Rove's very early and strong attacks on only one opponent: Hillary Clinton and the suspicion Rove is doing this to ensure the party rallies around her.
Rasmussen shows one reason why:
Edwards (46%) Giuliani (44%)
Edwards (50%) Huckabee (33%)
Edwards (45%) McCain (38%)
Edwards (52%) Romney (36%)
Edwards (47%) Thompson (41%)
Closest contests are with Giuliani and Thompson, right?
Here's Obama, a threat, but not as strong right now, even with all the Edwards bashing in the media:
Obama (44%) Giuliani (43%)
Obama (46%) Thompson (39%)
Now, look at Hillary:
Clinton (40%) Giuliani (47%)
Clinton (46%) Thompson (43%)
I could only find recent polling results from Rasmussen, but Rolling Stone Magazine bears this out in its Aug. 10 edition in an article entitled "The Real Liberal: John Edwards..."
"In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them -- by an average of twelve points."
I personally find that every moderate Republican that hasn't completely gone over to the Raspberry Red KoolAid-infused mindset finds Edwards most tolerable of all the Dem Candidates. Eventually, we as a nation will have to find some common ground and while all Dem Candidates have their strong points, isn't it time for some healing?