Hillary was a Goldwater conservative when she met Bill. She is not a screaming bleeding heart liberal like I am . So I wonder what she really is. I do not trust her yet. Then again she might feel the need to Thatcherized and show a woman is tough if elected.
She seems to search for an electable stance istead of revealing who she is. Generally pols do that after being nominated ,hoping to bring along their believers and add middle ground. But she seems to be doing that all the time.
I am not ready to believe Obama can get elected. I can imagine the Fox and Swift boaters going crazy to defeat him. It would set new standards for an ugly campaign. He does not have a long enough legislative record to refute the claims. He has not been defined yet.
Neither of them could beat the Republican contender. Hillary Clinton just carries too much baggage. Whether justified or not, she’s the liberal poster girl Conservatives love to hate. Her character wouldn’t just be assassinated in the campaign, it would be kidnapped, tortured and cruelly murdered, all in plain view.
Obama is exciting, but only to the liberals. Conservatives are wondering what the hell is so damn attractive about the guy, because he just doesn’t talk about things they care about.
And, of course, **bdgr ** is right – there are too many bigots still voting. Anti-female voters would vote against their own mothers, and anti-black voters just never learn.
Having said all of that, could either be nominated by the Dems? Of course! Under the apparent belief that Bill Clinton solved all of the world’s problems, the Democrats have insisted on fucking up the nomination process in two consecutive elections. With the American people utterly disillusioned with the Republicans, there is only one way the Dems can give away the 2008 presidential election, and that’s to nominate either Clinton or Obama. So, I predict a Clinton-Obama ticket.
So what? The idea isn’t to win over conservative voters. The idea is to win over swing voters.
Well, I think a Hillary/Obama ticket could win, if all the Republicans could nominate was Pat Robertson or Steve Forbes, IMO.
The OP stipulates McCain, however. I think McCain seems moderate enough to appeal to the “middle undecided” voters. Obama is unknown/untried as of yet, and Hillary seems to me to be the consumate lifetime political animal, able to change forms as it suites her. (For me, this makes predicting her actions difficult. Do I think she is capable? Yes. Is she a better choice than McCain? Urmm… IMO, no.)
The OP also stipulates Edwards. I think that Hillary could beat Edwards. Edwards will have to work off the stigma of having run once, and lost. Hillary has been succesfull in most of her political activities.
Obama represents a Midwestern state, even if Illinois is no longer a swing state. Unless and until a poll suggests to the contrary, I will continue to think he’ll do pretty well in the region.
And as someone said, the OP stipulates McCain. The poll I linked to shows Hillary beating McCain by 5%. That poll could be wrong. But if it’s reflective of the current state of play, it’s hard to lose the EC while winning the popular vote by that much. Hell, it wasn’t easy for Gore to lose the EC while winning the popular vote by 0.5%.
Just what color is the sky, in this world where conservatives don’t care about their religious faith?
[slight hijack]
What’s the “beer test?”
[/slight hijack]
It’s just shorthand for “Would I feel comfortable sitting down and having a beer with this person?”
Voters like candidates who seem down-to-earth, and this is just a way of expressing that.
I think that is probably true if Hillary is the candidate. I don’t know if it’s true for Obama. Racism is a funny thing. In Kentucky (where my husband is from) it’s very blatant. People will toss “nigger” and “coon” around in front of strangers–and this in Louisville. (I always expect bigger cities to be more tolerant, I guess.)
But we live just 4 hours from Louisville and you will go years between hearing the word “nigger.” I had never heard the word “coon” used in any derogatory way until my husband explained it to me when we were watching a movie.
So, how racist is it up here? I don’t know. Do people not say things here because they don’t feel them, or because it’s against the culture? I don’t know. I know that it is definitely against the culture I grew up in, but it seems like more overt racism was a little more accepted when I was in school than it is now. Are the attitudes improving, or just the camouflage? Again, I don’t know. And without the open racism, does it become less attractive after a while? I think so, but I couldn’t bet on it.
Dang! Here I was thinking it was whether the person was “doable” after having a few. 
I guess I’d do Hillary but it’d take more than a few . . .
This question came up in a thread last month about the views of Obama held by the Civil Rights Establishment. Some of the comments by Dopers of color include:
“I have never met a Black person who does not like Barack Obama. . . . Accordingly, Obama, who married a Black woman, has Black kids, is a dem, and goes to a Black church should have no problem getting damn near every Black vote.”
"I’ve essentially seen unanimous support of Obama among the black people I know. In contrast, there has always been intra-community debate about Sharpton, Jackson, et al. "
Or put more dramatically, "if he’s on the ticket in 2008, can almost certainly count on the vote of every African-American but Alan Keyes. "
One thing to remember is that many southern states have a high percentage of the population and voting base that is black. If there is overwhelming black and minority turnout, it could be enough to significantly impact the election, and probably overcome the effect of the “racist” vote.
It’s still only anecdotal, so it doesn’t need to be noted that much, swing state or no.
But thanks for noticing. 
At any rate, we would certainly see the biggest nationwide black voter-registration drive since the '60s.
There’s no downside to that, is there? 
Just saw this Quinnipiac poll of Ohio voters, which reminded me of this post, since you’re an Ohioan.
They asked the “who would you vote for” question, with (a) Hillary as the Dem candidate, and various Pubbies (McCain, Giuliani, Romney) as the GOP candidate; and then (b) with McCain as the GOP candidate, and Obama and Edwards as the Dem candidates.
Hillary beat both McCain and Giuliani, but within the MOE, and beat Romney by about 20 points. McCain beat Obama, but lost to Edwards, all within the MOE.
Hillary’s approval/disapproval ratings in OH were 49/38, but Gingrich’s were 24/50. (That’s even worse than Kerry’s 35/51!) Please, please, GOP, nominate Gingrich!!
Lots of other goodies in this poll - too many to mention in one post. Read it for yourself.
That poll worries me. With as much Republican crap as we’ve had in Ohio, with the Iraq situation, with Bush’s approval ratings, and with as badly as Blackwell and DeWine lost (by 24 points and 13 points respectively), Clinton is barely winning in the polls. She should be blowing them away at this point.
Those unfavorables on Giuliani and McCain are so low. Ack.
They’ll go up, don’t worry. Giuliani’s gotten a free ride since 9/11 because he hasn’t been running for anything. If he runs, that’ll change, and there’s plenty of unflattering stuff about him.
And how many Ohioans know that McCain voted to abolish the minimum wage entirely just the other day? Bet that fact alone would bump his unfavorables up by 10+ points.
This was an actual bill that made it to the Senate floor?! Cite?
No, it was a proposed amendment to the minimum wage bill that the Dems were trying to pass. But the amendment made it to the floor, and got 28 votes (all GOP, of course). It would have reverted to the States the authority to determine the proper minimum wage.