Question for Democrats...

I'm not a democrat, I'm an independant, so this isn't really directed but I felt like responding. First even if Gore had won in 2000 it would have been by the same narrow, debatable margin that Bush won by so there would have been questions about Gore's legitimacy as well. It's not like there were 1 million votes in Florida that were ignored. It was a few hundred, maybe 1000 tops. So I never quite understood how democrats could have ever thought that Gore would have been any more legitimate than Bush. The fact is that Gore should have won in a landslide with great economy, big surplus, good foreign relations etc. etc. that Clinton had left behind. There's no way Bush should have had a chance in 2000. The problem wasn't Florida. The problem was that Gore was such a terrible candidate and ran such a poor campaign that he completely squandered what should have been an easy victory. As for right now. Edwards isn't the frontrunner because democrats either want another Clinton in office for 4-8 more years or someone completely new and different altogether and Edwards is neither. His biggest problem is that he was the vice presidential candidate on the ticket that couldn't even defeat an unpopular incumbant. He couldn't even win the presidential nomination in 2004 in a weak field so he certainly isn't going to win it in 2008 with two very strong canditates in Obama and Hillary. All that said, Edwards would be the guy that I would vote for. I think that Hillary would bring the same old political B.S. to the white house and while Obama talks a good game, it's yet to be determined if he can walk the walk. I think he has enough experience in Washington yet I also believe that he would bring refreshing change to the white house.