Recent 2008 polling has shown two things in particular. First, it has shown Hillary's lead in the 2008 presidential race solidifying. After flirting with Obama and to a lesser extent Edwards, democrats are realizing that experience matters. Likwise, all three top tier democrats are improving their standing over the top republicans. In sum, this means it is becoming more likely that Hillary will be nominated, and an improving chance that she will be elected. I say good. I'm sorry kos, but you guys are all wrong about Hillary/Obama/Edwards. Yes there is a nice quality to the idealism and inexperience of Obama and Edwards. But in reality, our country is facing extordinary problems. Most of these problems were created by our current inexperienced president. Given, Edwards and Obama aren't malicious like Bush. But the next president needs to do more than just not harm the country any more. The next president needs to start rolling back the damage.
Two new polls (NBC and Qunnipac) have shown Hillary leading Giuliani (and the others). Just about every poll I have seen, from NBC to Rasmussen to the state by state polls shows Hillary also not just holding her lead, but solidifying it. I say good. I really like Obama and Edwards. But we would take an enormous risk with either. Like Kerry in 2004, neither Obama nor Edwards have much experience in national elections. Edwards was the Vice Presidential nominee, but Kerry didn't win. Compare that with Hillary's experience in national elections.
Both Obama and Edwards have more risk and more potential for reward than Hillary. There are more voters whom they could realistically win than voters that Hillary could win. But on the other hand, Hillary's base of near-certain support is much larger and more solid than theirs. Put another way, she doesn't have to hold her own. All she has to do is focus on winning as much of that 10% who could vote either way.
The potential for either Obama or Edwards to implode is great. Their don't have the experience in national campaigns, and neither seem as willing as she is to go hard and negative. Sorry guys, but negativity does win elections. Obama's hesitancy to go negative is a major reason why I don't think he should be the nominee. Whoever they nominate, will have to tear them apart by tying them to Bush and Iraq. With some nominees (McCain and Giuliani), we will have an easier time at this. Others (Romney and Fred Thompson) we will have a more difficult time with this. But will be able to do it to any of them. And this means that we need a candidate with a lot of money (Hillary had almost $15 million more Cash on hand at the end of Q1 than Obama, as well as a lower burn rate).
So yes, I am a kossack who supports Hillary. I think that this country and world are so messed up that we cannot afford a president who has to learn on the job.