Ever since Iowa the Clintons have been escalating the debate, scoring a few short term wins in NH and NV. However, each negative comment and each dirty trick has chipped little chunks from the facade that Hillary has been building for the last decade.

Until now, there have only been hints as to what's behind the mask. Now things are different. Nevada chipped enough away to reveal a fleeting glimpse of the raw, naked, selfish ambition that lies at the heart of the Clinton campaign.

If she really wanted what's best for the country she'd never have attacked Obama for giving the Republicans and Regan a modest compliment, especially seeing how she was for the compliments before she was against it. How is she going to get anything accomplished when she refuses to acknowledge any merit to the other side? Is this the kind of "leadership" you need to accomplish MLK's dream?

If she really wanted what's best for the Democratic party, she'd understand that there was a line in the sand. You can separate yourself on the issues, but don't intentionally hurt a fellow Democrat with innuendos and dirty politics. Look at the way she's campaigned vs. the way Obama has campaigned. Can you really call her campaign honorable?

Hillary very clearly wants what's best for Hillary. Much like Bill, she'll say whatever it takes to get what she wants, what she's "owed".

I'm an independent. I would have happily supported Hillary, were she the eventual nominee. Now, that's about as unlikely as unlikely gets. Somehow I don't think the country needs another hated president.

Mark my words, head to head with McCain.. Hillary loses. What will Hillary run on when McCain takes her to task and her illusion of experience goes up in a puff of smoke? She 's the only Democratic candidate (other than Gravel and Kucinich) who could possibly lose in the general.

The only good thing to come out of a Clinton nomination is a viable Bloomberg.

I'm also an indenpendent who was looking forward to vote for a democratic candidate in this election. However, following her campain so far, if this candidate is Hillary I will vote for whoever is on the other side.

This is exactly my point. She might win the Democratic nomination, because of her standing with the party hard-liners, but there is just no conceivable way that she's going to defeat McCain or any other perceived moderate in a general election. I'm as liberal as they come, and I might just have to sit out myself, because I would be ashamed if, eight years from now, I was ever forced to say that my country's Presidency had been in the hands of the same two families for 30 years straight.

Well said. There's been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1980. Once people actually start to think about what a 2nd Clinton administration means, her negatives will go up above 50%

I am in total agreement. The Clintons are going to hand the country to the Republicans in their attempt to establish this little dynasty of theirs. I see my country a year from now with McCain, Romney or (nonGod forbid) Mike Huckabee in the White House, and there's nothing I can do about it.

If only Edwards would wake up and endorse Obama while he still can. Sadly, I think he's going to continue to wait and in a couple of weeks it won't matter who he sides with.

That's my concern too and I just can not understand how the dems can be that shortsighted. This should be their election and by pushing another Clinton as their candidate, they are doing their best to ensure defeat.

This is a link to a compilation of all the national polls. Both Hill. and BoB are vulnerable to McCain, but poll strong vs. everyone else. The difference: Barack has not been attacked yet while Hillary has been the subject of vicious attacks for almost two decades now and there is nothing new to throw at her. That's why the right wing talk radio republicans fear Hillary and keep talking about how nice Barack is. They want fresh meat.

<link>

If you look at the polls you provided, you'll see that Barack Obama beats Clinton in every one of them. So does John Edwards. Speaking only of plain facts, she has the worst chance of securing the White House of any of the top three Democratic candidates.

And by the way, the fact that she is most vulnerable against McCain is pertinent since McCain just mopped up his second victory in a row and is now the Republican front-runner.

Also cctocs, you have to consider the issue of voter turnout. Republicans despise Clinton and will come out in droves just to vote against her whereas many Democrats such as myself and the other bloggers here, with Hillary as the nominee, may just sit the election out.

So, if Hillary beats Romney in simple popularity by 55% to 45%, Romney will probably end up winning the election by a ten-point margin simply because more Republicans will turn out to vote.

We need someone with a substantial lead in numbers like that, and you know who that's got to be.

What is strange about this thread is that there are no Hillary supporters here, trumpeting their cherished champion. Is that significant? Probably not, but strange though.

I am a Republican who has vented several times here on the issue of the Bush administration, and I am in complete agreement with the other posts here with a caveat. While a GOP victory in November would be a disaster, redeeming the vile Bush Presidency because none of the GOP candidates have been critical of Bush, it appears likely that the Dems are forcing me to rejoin my party. Enough said about Hillary - everyone here has expressed themselves quite well - but I am not enthralled with Obama. He comes across to me like a slick talker, sometimes sounding like a preacher, and I can't get a feel for the essence of him. He is very inexperienced. Nobody wants to admit it, but that is a detriment. Bush was inexperienced and he was taken over by a power elite. Also, if Obama becomes the nominee, it could well be a very dirty campaign. The Roveites are drooling at the prospect of a black candidate, and the campaign could well become the worst of scenarios, black vs. white. Good Lord.

In addition, I am not very happy with Edwards. He, too, lacks substance. Just a gut feeling I suppose, but I can't picture this man as the President of the United States.

You see what I mean. I've said it many times. This election is for the Dems to lose. They may already have done that by tossing the three most experienced candidates, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd. That's a whale of a lot of experience. Yes, I have heard all the rhetoric about the C-word. And I don't believe it for a minute. With the economy going south, two endless wars (5 and 6 years old), and the search for the mass murderer - bin Laden - going into its seventh year, this is no time for a novice.

Perception is everything. If I perceive the above paragraph to be true, and many others feel the same way (not buying the C-word storyline), and McCain becomes the GOP nominee vs. Hillary or Obama, what am I, or we, supposed to do? That is what I mean when I say that the Dems may already have lost this election.

On the other hand, the white hot anger against Bush is a powerful Democratic weapon. Woe is me. What to do???

I have a lot of similarities with your perspective; however, I think the "ugliness" of the race if Obama is the nominee works to the Democrats advantage. He does a great job of avoiding identity politics, and Republican race-baiting might fire up the 10% of the country that's truly virulently racist, but it will alienate everybody else. One of Obama's great attributes is that he reminds us of our better selves, and if the election comes down to a "better selves v. uglier selves", I have faith in the American people.

I still think that Obama is the best choice, not just for dems, but for the whole country. I like his message of hope, his toughfulness, his ability to work with both sides, his intelligence and respect he gets from people that know and worked with him from both sides. I see him as a candidate that can really unite and insipre people in this country and would be happy to vote for him in general elections.

I’m mystified by this kind of reporting, and this kind of thread. First let me say Hillary Clinton is not my first choice. Edwards is. And I have no idea what "the C word" is. But this thread has me reflexively defending her, because it is so obviously projection of intense personal dislike of her; and like the media coverage, it presumes she is a liar and that an untested glob of question marks like Obama is good and truthful and upstanding.

It seems to me they are both politicians. Yet when Hilary accuses Obama of slimy maneuvers and voter suppression, those accusations are treated as the Clinton machine propagating dirty tricks, slinging lies and mud; while, when Obama accuses Hilary of slimy maneuvers and voter suppression, those accusations are received as further proof of the Clinton machine propagating dirty tricks. Since I see little evidence presented either way, I assume it is the personal dislike of Hilary that drives this. Her detractors will say I am naive for not simply recognizing that she will do anything to win, but that would sort of further my point: aren’t Obama supporters of this type naive for thinking he WON’T do anything to win? I’m willing to pick the best Democratic candidate from these two if I have to, but I’d like to do it on facts and evidence. So far all I see is personal animosity, assumptions, and slanted coverage.

As to their respective chances in the general election, the only Democrats that this Democrat has seen that have the spine, the will, and the talent to go toe-to-toe with the Republican smear machine in the last 10 years, and win, are Hilary and her husband.

Obeny, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post--three sentences in and you're already calling Obama "untested".

Barack Obama has spent more years as an elected official than your candidate, Hillary Clinton, has. His record is longer than hers, and his experience greater. The only way you can consider him "untested" is if you have remained willfully ignorant of the facts.

And furthermore, your insistence that Hillary and Bill can take on the Republican candidates better than Obama flies in the face of every piece of polling data that's been collected on the subject. Time after time, studies show that she is far more disliked than any of her Republican rivals and stands a far worse chance in the general election than either Edwards or Obama. You're substituting personal opinion as if it were fact.

No doubt to you, Obama is nothing more than an "untested glob of question marks"; but that's because you have put no effort into learning about him. Honestly, I won't try to dissuade you any further because I believe you are the perfect supporter for Hillary Clinton.