"Winning the primaries isn't a good indication of who can win the general election."

[HeraldSquare212]

That's from the Clinton campaign conference call, that's being broadcast now on POTUS 08 on XM radio. It was a male from the campaign speaking, I didn't catch who.

[snooper2]

1. Well...

You have to win the primarys to get to the general election so that's a pretty stupid postion...

[Vincardog]

2. Unless you are a POS named LIEberman

[Tesha]

3. Unfortunately, stupid though it may be, it's clearly true.

Which is why Democrats so often chose a clear loser
to run in the General Election.

Tesha

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. No, I think what they are saying is that the preference of Democrats doesn't necessarily speak to

who Repubs might cross over for.

[Bake]

5. Two words: Michael. Dukakis.

I'm sure Dems thought he would sweep the nation back then, too.

Bake

[Debi]

6. By that reasoning - HOWARD DEAN should be President right now!

x(

[jlake]

7. Well, he probably could have won the GE.

[Debi]

10. Yes, he could have. nt

[Johnny__Motown]

8. Is Losing the primaries a good indication of who can win the general election?

Wow, Clinton people are desperate

[stillcool]

9. Losing the primary...

means winning the General Election? Selection 2000 redux: Super Delegates 2008