The Democrats will win the presidency in 2008.

First of all, I would just like to say that many of your arguments make sense, but are wrong in the sense of what is going right now with their policies and the reactions from the public. I will first deal with each of the candidates, and then make some closing remarks. Let's start with Hillary: She has said herself, that "all options are on the table when dealing with Iran...if they do not stop their nuclear program." (http://ezraklein.typepad.com...)In addition, she is EXTREMELY alienating, and unless she take advantage of Bill, which she really hasn't in the past, she will just end up pushing away a lot of potential voters. Now Obama: Yes, he does have a National health care plan, as you and Ms. Lindsay have stated, but keep in mind, this is not a UNIVERSAL health care plan, just another form of medicare to help those disabled, which we are doing in essence right now. Also, while I sort of like him, and can say from seeing him speak live that he has amazing charisma and a way of knowing what the people want, a great deal of the voter base will be turned off from him either: 1) not having enough experience, 2) being African-American, or 3) having ties to Islam. The rest of the dems aren't that noticeable, with maybe the exceptions of Richardson, (my favorite democrat) who has good policies and views, but has the personality of a dead fish, or Edwards, who is very religious, which will turn off some voters, and is for the death penalty, which won't help him. Now for the right: I agree with what you say about Romney, his religion will kill him, but he provides good points and adds them to the table helping the entire Republican base, and when it comes time to the actual election, not the primaries, those will help a great deal Giuliani: Pretty much the same thing as Romney, as he is too liberal for most of the conservatives. But again, he adds good points, especially concerning defense, to the rest of the candidates, and knows how to protect our nation. Hunter/Tancredo: These guys are relatively interchangeable, like Biden/Dodd, and they feel that we should greatly increase our defense budget and go deeper in Iraq and set up border fences. These two issues will attract a great deal of voters to the right, as people have been worried about our defense ever since 9/11, and these two will provide it. While they not be that good and not garnering that much attention, one of them will probably end up as a candidates running mate. Now for Huckabee: This guy is exactly what the Grand Ol' Party needs, and he delivers in spades. He is exactly the thing the "Bible Belt" and America's big voters want: Really charismatic, deeply religious, VERY conservative on social issues, wants to limit the government, hates terrorists, and hates gay marriage/abortion. This guy will pull a great deal of voters out of the woodwork and will only strengthen the GOP. And finally, Paul: In a vast amount of elections, the most recent probably being either the 1992 election where Clinton won, there is a major front runner who is leading the pack, and some random schmuck no one has heard about. Then, what happens? The underdog garners a great deal of public attention, has good policies, and wins the primaries and election. As you said yourself, America wants change, and a great deal of Americans feel this is the man to provide it. In the end, the Republicans have far more executive experience than any of the other progressives, and while the democratic base will be split, the GOP base has two or three strong candidates who will pull voters towards them and end up winning '08.