Voters should be hungry for change on gridlocked issues. Obama brought the first ethics reform to Springfield in 20+ years. He didn't do it alone. He did it by picking off support from Republicans that were willing to work with him on the issue. He did the same thing in getting CAFE increases through the US Senate, again for the first time in 20+ years. Obama is the best candidate to build a foundation for sustained effort on issues like correcting our foreign policy, global warming, and health care. I respect Edwards passion and Clinton's competence, but we need to be looking to forming something like the post-WW2 consensus on at least the key issues. Is Hillary positioned to do that with her negatives? Is Edwards' confrontational style going to be effective in building the consensus we must have if we are going to make the core reforms to our governing process that are absolutely essential to facing the 21st century's challenges?

Who in this race is positioned to be the statesman we must have?

"Hillary's negatives". "Hillary's negatives". "Hillary's negatives".

There is going to have to be a different approach because that's not working. She's got low negatives for the same reason that John Kerry had low negatives after (but not before) he won the nomination. I can guarantee you that Obama, should he win the nomination will have high negatives after they are through with him (doesn't mean he can't win, though).

Wasn't the "post-WWII consensus" marked by extreme anti-Communist sentiment which aimed at rooting out all dissenters as "subversives"? One need look no further than to what happened to many of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project (e.g. Oppenheimer). There was massive disagreement during that time that makes our bipartisan spats pale in comparison.

This doesn't meant that we need to go out looking for fights, but we are going to have to and I haven't yet seen much fight in Obama. Anecdotally, Hillary's toughness plays much better than Obama's "bipartisanship" amongst my nonactivist friends. That goes along with the recent Pew poll that showed 67% of Dems view HRC as "tough". Similarly, over half view her as "smart".

Keith, I agree with you. The RNC is seeing that Hillary is really not that strong of a contender in the early primary states. They are seeing the very real possibility that Obama could win IA, NH and SC...which means they need to start attacking him.

GQMartinez, you speak about Hillary's high negatives and then say that Obama will have high negatives if he gets the nomination. I agree with you that any candidate who gets the nomination will wind up watching their negatives grow as the campaign progresses.

The problem is that Hillary has no where to go, she is already trending so high that any further up movement means she loses the general. Whereas, Obama is starting with low negatives, as an unknown, and he will undoubtedly move up, but he has room to allow those negtives to increase. Hillary doesn't.

People's minds are made up about Hillary, only Obama has the potentially to bring on new supporters and it looks like he is crossing party lines as well in terms of independents and GOP'rs that support him.

Kerry's negatives went up so dramatically in part b/c he allowed the right-wing to define him before defining himself in the crucial period around the conventions.

Our 2008 candidate cannot make the same mistake, whether it's a re-introduction by Hillary or Edwards or an introduction by Obama.

I do think opinions of Hillary, both positive and negative, are much firmer, however, than the newer opinions about the other two candidates. Opinions about them will have more room to be shaped, up or down, among the average voters who only tune in much later in the process.

Long story short, I think it will be harder for Hillary to change minds than it will be for Edwards or Obama to make a positive first impression, which Kerry unfortunately failed to do, and carry that impression through to the election.

Regardless of who wins, as soon as any candidate locks up the Democratic nomination, that campaign should launch a massive PR blitz for several weeks, with the candidate and surrogates going on every TV show possible and airing positive bio ads heavily, both nationally and in swing states.

You get one shot to make people take notice and make a positive first impression or else the right-wing will do it for you with lies, smears, and manufactured controversies.

How long has the Democratic party yearned for a "Democratic Reagan," a candidate who draws support from both Independents and from members of the opposing party? Now we have one in Obama.

And, Obama is the only candidate with the money to compete with Hillary nationwide on Feb. 5th. Even if Edwards or another candidate were to win all the early states, Hillary would overwhelm him on Tsunami Tuesday.

It's Obama vs. Hillary, folks.

Obama really can help to unite the nation. Hillary can only continue the division--her natural instinct.