Edwards raises a very good point, something Democrats have an amazing capacity to over look.

In 2000 the Democrats ran Al Gore, and he wasn't able to generate enough enthusiasm to secure the white house. In 2004 they ran John Kerry as the "Bush-beater" candidate, and he didn't generate enough enthusiasm to even make people bother noticing the blatant fraud in the election. Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and Stevenson were no better. The democrats have run an outstanding array of losers since the mid point of the 20th century.

As long as Hilary Clinton remains an establishment candidate with no clear ideological positions and delicately structured plans that only go half way, she won't be winning anything.

Also, seriously, if the election came down to Hillary (Bomb Iran) v. Guliani (BOMB IRAN) then we would be looking at a contest where the Daisy Girl add would be considered positive PR!

Complete agreement. Hillary's campaign (and future cabinet) is staffed from lobbyists and PR firms; she's spent years talking hawkish on defense; she is the closest to big business of all the Democratic candidates; she offers stale foreign policy directions; she is secretive and unknowable.
I find no incentive to vote if she's the candidate. She represents what I dislike most about American politics.

Actually, I was going to add another section on Stephen Colbert to this clip, but ran out of space.

The interesting thing about Mr. Colbert is that the country was polled on a three way race between Colbert, Giuliani, and Hillary, and Colbert got 15%. That's better than Ralph Nader! It would almost be enough to get funding for a new political party! (and among 18-25 year olds, Colbert actually finishes second, ahead of Giuliani!)

Normally I'm against throwing away votes on a third party, but I do have to draw the line. I won't vote for anyone who I think will start a new war, and I'm pretty damn sure that rules out Hillary. That means I might just end up voting Colbert in '08.