A lot of voters are watching Clinton, Obama and Edwards

[ruggerson]

to decide who has the guts to destroy the Republican candidate next fall.

In a way, our primary process is a small mirror of what is to come next year.

If you think what Clinton is doing to Obama or what Obama is doing to Edwards or what Edwards is doing to Clinton is bad or over the line, then you are fooling yourself about what the Republicans will try to do to whomever our nominee is during the general election.

Watch our three frontrunners and see who wages political war in the most unrelenting and methodical fashion.

Whether we like it or not, elections in this country are not won solely on policy positions, they are won by being the bigger, stronger, smarter, tougher son of a bitch.

[BootinUp]

1. The GE will be a maul fest. nt

[calteacherguy]

2. There are different ways to be "tough." nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. The media is getting uglier as the cacus gets closer.

I feel for Clinton. She has to fight the candidates and the media.

[Lucinda]

13. They all do. Its a freaking nasty gauntlet they have to run.

I agree that Clinton in particular is getting hammered. They air the spin, and attack her when she defends herself. It's been an amazing thing to watch. I'm not tough enough to go through that.

[tekisui]

4. I hold to the thought:

The candidate that wins the Democratic Primary, is by extension the most electable. To beat out such a fine field, they will prove to be the smartest and toughest and will go on to kick the living hell out of whatever dried up coot the goppers toss us.

[rfranklin]

5. The Republicans will be like wounded wild animals...

They know their guts are hanging out of their bellies and they're cornered.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. But there's a big difference between internecine warfare and Puggie-bashing.

At the end of the battle, we want somebody still standing on our side of the field. If our people really shred each other in the primaries, they'll be doing the Puggies' work for them.

[calteacherguy]

7. Exactly.

We need a candidate who leads by example.

[NCarolinawoman]

9. In my opinion, that would be Joe Biden. n/t

[CrispyQ]

10. I agree.

Didn't he say in one of the debates, something to the effect of 'I'm not running against these guys, I'm running against whoever the republican candidate is.'

Biden is a class act.

[lvx35]

8. Its the truth. That's why I don't hold Hillary's "negatives" against her.

The way I see it, she's been the victim of the Republican attack machine for years. Its up to Obama and Edwards to show they've got what it takes to succeed, and so far, they aren't doing too bad.

[Olney Blue]

11. The republicans are ruthless, heartless liars. We have to have a candidate

who will fight, and we will need to unite behind him/her to help them. (IMHO)

[The Traveler]

12. One not need be unethical to be tough

It really concerns me to see campaigns slide into the realm of "dirty tricks". If we want "rat fuckers" like Karl Rove in the halls of power, we may as well relax because we certainly have them now? Do we want more of the same? Of course not.

I doubt seriously that HRC herself is behind any of this crap ... but she has not exerted sufficient leadership to turn it off, either. (Is this a case of "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Let us hope not.)

What we need is the kind of toughness that inspires the people to hold all their leaders to account. The kind of toughness that refuses to be dragged into the slime and relentlessly pursues the issues that are important to the American people. In my view, John Edwards has done the best job thus far of exerting that kind of toughness, and for that reason I have finally tossed him what little benefit derives from my support.

Could Obama exert himself so recklessly, so defiantly, so relentlessly? Could Clinton? Or any of the others? I am certain they could and indeed they may yet. This story is not finished. More will be said, and more will be revealed.

** edited to fix editing boo-boo **