Who Can Win in November?

Yet another Washington Beltway media maven out of touch with everyday people. John Edwards' populist message is perfectly tuned as a follow-up to the nuclear winter of the last seven years. All one has to do is look at the Independents' scoring of Edwards in the last debate -- he consistently went off the charts when talking about corporate greed and CEO pay.

Jonathan, after you acknowledge Dodd and Biden, on the merits, as the two most electable Democrats you put them at the bottom of the list against higher polling, but riskier, contenders. Sure, they have little chance of gaining enough recognition to become viable, but isn't that largely because the political writers have ignored them up to this point? Your piece is about electability, not about the odds that they will be our next president. I think you should have made that more clear up front.

(You may have to give back your theme song after this . . .)

For the ten thousandth time, Au Jun, they didn't vote to invade Iraq. They voted to give Bush that authority, after he promised to use it as a last resort. They voted for a bargaining chip, not an invasion. Armed with war authority, Bush was supposed to be in a position to compel Hussein to let weapons inspectors come back. As we now know, Bush had no intention of not invading, but Hillary and Edwards didn't know that. You can say they were played if you want to, but I'm tired of hearing that they supported Bush's war policy, were itching to invade, or voted to invade. Obama deserves credit for his vote if he really foresaw what would happen, but he's not the "peace" candidate, and the others are not "war" candidates, despite what Obama supporters claim.

ducdebrabant , Edwards and Hillary voted to invade Iraqu....mistep or experience?
Obama was right on Iraq, Afghan and Pakistan. Obama will engage people like Kim Jong-Il, do u want
the continuation of Bush's policies...then vote for Edwards or Clinton

Where's Dr. Ron Paul in this analysis? He's got a strong internet following, a huge surge in campaign finances(including the one day record for fundraising), and more donations recieved from veterans than any other candidate. I think with these things going for him, he would at least be mentioned, positive or not. However, not mentioning him only shows a sloppiness that shouldn't happen when reporting or editorializing on what could be the most important election for the nation's near and far future.

Where's Dr. Paul in this analysis? From reading this article, it looks like you've completely ignored a man who's garnered a wide internet support, more donation money than any republican candidate, and more donations from veterans than any other candidate. Where's the strory? What factor does he play? Remember, nobody has voted in Iowa or New Hampshire yet, so it's still anyone's race. I think it's just plain sloppy reporting to not even mention someone who has a strong grassroots support for him.

Obama is NOT a drug user, nor a Muslim. Read up on these guys before you speak, to be fair!

It is very risky to rate the chances of a candidate without knowing who his or her opponent will be. Obviously, the chances of a candidate like Obama would be better against some Republicans than against others.
ABC = Anybody But Clinton !

Well, if you're a republican, I'd say you'd like to see Dodd win; if you're a democrat, you'd like to see Obama win. And if you're an independent, you should be hoping Ron Paul wins!

Interesting article. For better or for worse, electability is a critical issue in the primaries. Before I read this, I too would have argued that the Republicans would be wise to nominate McCain while the Democrats would be wise to nominate Obama on the basis of electability. If either party goes a different direction, it is fighting an uphill battle in my opinion. As a Democrat, I really hope Iowans set the tone for the election and choose Obama.

Ron Paul is the best candidate for 2008 elections. It is disgusting that Newsweek has ignored him. How can you ignore a candidate who generated more than 6M funds for his campaign in one single (no candidate, republican or democrat generated as many funds in a single day as him), and all this money was generated with support of individuals - i.e. a common man donating 25, 50, 100 dollars. BE FAIR and add Ron Paul to your list.

Ron Paul is the best candidate for 2008 elections. It is disgusting that Newsweek has ignored him. How can you ignore a candidate who generated more than 6M funds for his campaign in one single (no candidate, republican or democrat generated as many funds in a single day as him), and all this money was generated with support of individuals - i.e. a common man donating 25, 50, 100 dollars. BE FAIR and add Ron Paul to your list.