Who would be the optimal GOP frontrunners for each of OUR 3 frontrunners to go up against?

Since the two races are still relatively open, here's my take--

Clinton should go up against Romney--Hillary plays a stronger offensive game than anyone, and Romney is practically begging for someone to eviscerate his record of switching from moderate to neo-conservative as the current mood suits him. Clinton could do it with surgical precision, and could attract Evangelical women who would rather see a female in charge than a Mormon. Even the GOP hatred of the Clintons is nothing compared to their distrust of Mr. Mittens.

Obama should go up against Huckabee--Obama's "experience" problem would be less of an issue here, since the most notable thing Huckabee's done in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion is lose weight. Moreover, Obama is a superior speaker and even on his off-days exudes intelligence without coming off as an egghead--while Huckabee is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer. In this case, the dazzling, classy urbanite would make mincemeat out of a hick who still who believes that the Earth is only 5000 years old..

Edwards should go up against Giuliani--Assuming Rudy's still in the race, his womanzing ways would look even more despicable next to the rock-solid Edwards marriage. (It doesn't hurt that Elizabeth is possibly the most admirable First Lady in either party.) The charming, straight-talking Edwards would appeal to everyone, especially Southerners, most of whom view Rudy (correctly) as a thuggish jerk from the Big City, no matter how many times he repeats "9/11."

Who would YOUR favorite match-ups be?

:shrug:

McCain's oldster status and warmongering will not play well against Obama.

McCain's the one we would need to worry about. Obama may have an intersting, inspiring background and story, but it wouldn't play well when compared to the hell McCain endured in Vietnam, which he can and will bring up every time Obama's relative youth is questioned. McCain was only defeated in 2000 by a slew of dirty tricks, and since I'm sure Obama wouldn't resort to that level of fighting, he might lose.

But I'm positive he could beat Rudy soundly, and everyone else comfortably.

Kennedy was young, with little international experience and the nation was at a cold battle with the Soviets. The major campaign issue of 1960 was about the possibility of war and how Kennedy lacked the experience needed to lead the nation. Nixon, though, was tried and true, a real man of experience and what did it get him?

McCain's problem is that the country WANTS change, not just the illusion of it. McCain can try to talk about change all he wants, but it doesn't change the fact he is, without a doubt, an extension of the Bush administration.

I listen to McCain debate, he doesn't do a very good job. Next to Obama, he'll look lifeless, weak and old. That image will be seared into the voters' minds, just as Nixon's sweating was 48 years ago.

If McCain is the nominee, I think he will be the most dangerous. A McCain vs. Obama would surely be a striking contrast of the past vs. the future, but McCain still appeals to some independents and he may be able to demolish Obama on experience (and yes, it is way too early to assume that experince will "not matter").

I know McCain has the experience card to play, but it's all about change this election and I think Obama could paint him as an extension of the Bush administration. Plus I feel his style would contrast better with McCain. McCain is old, hems and haws a lot and doesn't seem too presidential, whereas Obama is young, eloquent and is Kennedyesque.

With that said, it is a risk, since McCain does have a lot of experience. Though I think McCain's war message will eventually sink him in the general.

they can neo-con themselves. In private, i hope.

I would take this out of the equation post haste. This is the largest anti-Clinton block out there.