I felt so validated in seeing those poll numbers, and then I wondered why he's in third place amongst democrats. Obama and Clinton have been pushed and pulled to the forefront by the mainstream media for a year as a mega contest. Lots of fun for the talking heads, but not a reflection of reality.

Also--I love the Guthrie Asch recordings. I have some of those on 78 rpm discs. I was raised on a steady diet of Guthrie and the Weavers!

Barbara Barnett

I agree with your comments about John Edwards. I am an Afro-American female who is not in love with Hillary or Obama. Edwards resonates with me and the other females in the family. I still thing that Edwards has a great chance to squeak through. We already know who he is.

The decision voters have is simple:

1. Do they want a Democrat indebted to and controlled by big money?

2. Do they want a Republican indebted to and controlled by big money?

3. Do they want someone not controlled by big money?

The choice should be obvious.

Montana For Obama!!
- MCH

There are two important things to remember about these kinds of matchup polls. You noted one of them, that they measure lack of negatives rather than positives. The other is that the impression of a candidate changes as he gets the nomination.

- win after win reinforces the positive image
- constant press coverage
- party unity behind the candidate
- the convention
- the other candidate's gaffes

Thank you for making these obvious points. With few signs that the mainstream media's deliberate sidelining of Edwards will abate, I can only hope that Iowa caucus-goers are aware of Edwards' strength in general election match ups, and take that into serious consideration on Jan 3.

McCain leads on the Republican side in these same polls. Part of the reason is that most 'normal' people haven't been paying close attention to the race yet. McCain and Edwards have more national name recognition.

Iowa and NH are small states, but the likely primary voters there have been paying more attention [not all of it voluntarily - I'm sure TV and radio are saturated there]. Many of them are 'true believer' conservatives and liberals who are looking for new faces. Thus they go for candidates who haven't run before.

I'm an Edwards supporter, but describing this poll and the discrepancies in which candidates are considered front runners as evidence of the prejudices of the mainstream media and pundits is just foolish paranoia.

Chris Matthews does great coverage of this sort of thing, btw. Worth watching every night. He has real guests, who disagree with him and each other, and the show is becoming a must-watch for the politically informed.

Baronius, Jon

I think that we are ignoring a very important factor.

There has always been a viable White male candidate running for office. That is not news. We have for the first time a White Female and a Black male who have a very good chance of being President of the United States.... leader of the free world. That is news. It's huge! It's an important marker in our evolution as a nation and it should be followed closely. With our history?

Also with both of these candidates it's a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario. They both brought something to cover before they were followed. Obama was raising eyebrows and gaining momentum with little coverage prior to his bid until the media had to stand up and notice. Hillary is who she is... She is after all the former first lady. The most openly viable one since Eleanor Roosevelt; a controversial and therefore titillating figure. Off course she is going to get coverage.

It dulls the discourse to simply jump to media bias when ever a political topic is presented. I'm hoping that we can start getting to the meat of the matter instead of waddling the the talk radio stigh.