Each one of the four front runners is very electable.

[mvd]

What matters most is that the nominee's strategic team is very good. I'm just tired of hearing that this candidate or that candidate isn't electable. Who is with me?

[Nazgul35]

1. maybe you should identify who they are....

as I think there are four....

:shrug:

[mvd]

3. Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Clark

You're right. I wish Kucinich was a front-runner. :-(

2. I'm with you

with one caveat -- things are moving so fast I can't keep track of who the THREE front runners are!!!

[OKNancy]

4. I agree with you 75%

well, actually 50%, because no New England "liberal" can win. That's politics in 2004. All four are great guys, but being realistic is something Democrats need to be.... or else.

[mvd]

7. The New England thing

I think that this perception can be changed when policies come into view and if a candidate is perceived as strong on security. Again, we just need good advisors for our nominee. Dean is not really a liberal, and I don't think Kerry would be seen as weak on security.

[OKNancy]

10. I don't know...prejudice dies hard

I don't like it, but I just try to be pragmatic about the whole thing.

[mvd]

11. Yes, it will be a challenge

But we let the Republicans paint us for too long. We have to start defining ourselves.

[oasis]

5. Agreed. But some are more electable than others.

[mvd]

9. That's true

My thinking is that if someone with as many deficiencies as Bush has can become President, even the most unelectable of our front runners can be elected if they effectively stay on message and pick a good team.

[democratreformed]

6. Thanks for changing this

NOW I can agree.

[phillybri]

8. I agree with you...They are all electable...

:dem: