Clintons' main tactical error may be....

[Didereaux]

he biggest negative on Clinton all along has been the assumption of title before the fact. The public is angry, angry with Dem Congress for not stopping the war and prosecuting criminals in office, they are angry at the administration for lying to them about the war, for lying about many other things, for high oil, for billions wasted at home and abroad that seemingly went directly from US treasury into criminal corps pockets, angry at themselves for being duped in the first place and on and on and on. You do not get elected or supported by making yourself appear aloof and above such petty feelings. You get yourself elected by being angry(or at least appearing to be so) at the same things, and adamantly stating your intentions to do something about these things.

The Clintons, and their advisers uncharacteristically opted for the statesman approach...it may be too late to recover. Then again the American electorate has the memory and attention span of a hog, and if Clinton goes full bore on the attack, not against the other candidates, but against those the people are mad at, the people may just conclude that she would have more clout and would be more apt to 'kill' the bad guys than would the other candidates. It is an easy leap to conclude that she might hold heavy duty grudges and so be far more apt to pursue vengeance...and so long as it did not interfere with attacking the major domestic issues and foreign problems, there is no logical reason the DoJcannot be kept gainfully employed investigating and prosecuting repug criminals.

that strategy could also work just as well for Edwards...get off the narrow anti-bigbidness soapbax and onto a larger stage that would allow all the other 'anger items' to be hammered at. The voters don't really give a crap about 'feel good' Oprah-esque newage yuppy clap-trap...not when laid side by side with Bush & Co. They will go back to ohmani kas, and kumbaya AFTER the bloodletting and burnings are over.