It sounds like many of you are pissed off at the Grammy's for ALWAYS awarding mainstream crap? If this is true, why are you so obsessed with the idea of wanting U2 to win? If you want U2 to win, you're saying that The Grammy voters for the first time in the history of their existence are going to vote for something respectable. That's what I don't understand.
I for one believe that Grammy usually awards artists based on previous work, not the album or song that goes along with their nomination. Bob Dylan, Steely Dan, Eric Clapton, Natalie Cole, Santana, were all well-deserving during their prime, but never recieved the BIG awards until their status was assured in the mainstream. The other determining factor is the "Hip/Popular Factor". This would be your George Michael's, Alanis Morriesette's, Lauren Hill's, and Christopher Cross's. They were really cool for the moment, but later prooved to be less creative than their counterparts that were nominated in the same year. For these reasons, I think U2 stands a great chance of winning based the former factor. They won last year (3 impressive awards), and in 1987 they won the Album of the Year, which may nix my prediction. In the end, U2 has more going for it that Keyes and Dylan, who are examples of the hip and the old. U2 fits snuggly in the middle. and that terriost attack didn't hurt their chances either...