Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Lots of good thoughts on this thread, so it's instructive to look back in history to see how various candidates compared in the past.
Up until March of 2008, Hillary had a commanding lead over virtually every other candidate, including Obama.
I agree that Joe Biden is a good man, but the highest that he ever got in the polls was 3%, way back in December of 2007.
Howard Schultz was recently mentioned as a candidate as well, but he simply would not have enough support to get elected, which also happens to be true for Bernie, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, and Jim Webb.
In the end, Obama's victory over Hillary was very narrow. Hillary actually got more voters in the primary, and a higher percentage of votes cast, but Obama picked up more delegates than she did, which gave him the nomination.
Few of us are going to get warm and fuzzy over Hillary for President, but I think that she has the best chance of becoming President. She's learned a lot of political tricks from both her husband and Obama, and her terms as a Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State, give her a background that can achieve successes both in domestic and foreign affairs.
With 21 current members in the clown car, it's fairly obvious that the Republicans do not have ANYONE who is qualified to be President, as exemplified by the Doonesbury strip in yesterday's paper.