McCain: He'll get nowhere because he won't run. He'll be 72. He has skin cancer. Some pics of him just look horrible. His wife has suffered a stroke (and she's only about 50), and he'll be very sickly and in no condition to run a campaign. Neither will she. He said after 2000 it's very unlikely he'll ever run again, and there's no way I can see him doing so in 2008.
Dean: I doubt he'll run either, but if he does he's old news. Plus he got all his momentum from an anti-war campaign. He won't be able to do that in 2008. What's he going to run on, he had one of the most commanding leads in primary history and still lost? Look at him to seek some Dem leadership post, or possibly the Senate seat in 2006 if Jeffords retires. But for anything else, he's out.
Giuliani: I'm not even convinced he'll run (he has yet to say anything of the sort, and prior to 9/11 a run from him would be considered a joke), but if he got in the Religious Right would sink him fast. He dumped his wife and moved in with a gay couple. His position on abortion is as liberal as Kerry's. You think Robertson and Falwell will tolerate this? His anti-gun record is huge, the NRA aren't going to deal with that either, and the primary process favors conservative states. He might have a chance in NH, but Iowa and South Carolina are big flops, and there's too many other pro-gun states early. If McCain was too liberal, he definately is.
Pataki: The only candidate who's even mentioned a possibility of a run so far in this, he also has the same problem of Guiliani of being too socially liberal for the primary electorate (the most conservative of the GOP), not to mention he's now very unpopular in NY and very likely to lose in 2006.
Hagel: McCain part II. Too much of a maverick, too hated by the party elites, too easy to take down.
Edwards: Remember Gary Hart and Ed Muskie? Plus he's going to have to justify doing nothing for 4 years.
Also, I'm not convinced Hillary will run, she has yet to say she has any intentions of such, and until I see some actual evidence that she has any (no, what Dick Morris says doesn't count), I will not consider her definately in.
For the most part, I agree with you, except on Pataki.
The difference between Pataki and Giuliani is that Rudy is a true social liberal (just admit it, he is) except when it comes to law and order. Pataki is far more moderate. He would probably lose in a lot of southern states, but win most everywhere else if social issues become a major focus.
If for some reason terrorism or North Korea/Iran becomes the main focus again then all bets are off. Pataki would do rather well and even Rudy would have a 70% chance of getting into at least the late primaries.
