Can Edwards just drop out already? He's going to start approaching Richardson levels here pretty soon. He has lost a lot of support across the board since IA.

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and I'd much rather him be president than Hillary, but seriously, not happening this time around. Run for Senate again.

I e-mailed Zogby to say that his national polling taken at the same time as Gallup/USAT and CBS/NYT did not jive - especially in light of the most recent polls from SurveyUSA (and Quinnepia?) showing Clinton in double digits in California, Florida, Pennsyvania, Michigan, New York and New Jersey. I don't see the arithmetic, let alone the statistical math, that brings Obama to within 1 point. Zogby's methodology is questionable here.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I have to agree with Matt. I don't see how Obama has the same name recognition as Hillary in the national polls. That's why on the republican side you see McCain ahead. McCain has been a national player, running in 2000 and so forth, so it makes sense that he's ahead in national polls.

Frankly, I don't place much stock in national polls as they are almost always wrong about predicting the outcome of a primary contest. I remember the days, for instance, when Howard Dean led national polls, until that is democrats started voting.

What I found interesting was that Giuliani received only 3% of the MI vote.

NBC changed the criteria to only include candidates who had placed first, second or third in either the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primaries. The revised criteria excluded Mr. Kucinich, who has averaged 3 to 4 percent support in recent Nevada polls.

I hope that the GOP will exclude those candidates whom to date have not kept a 5% or greater turn-out in previous primaries.

I mean honestly, why should we have to listen to some lame ass candidate like Rudy when it is obvious that 'his strategery' is now bordering on the ludicrous, and his statements of winning in 50 states seems to be contradicted each time people actually get to vote.

...Ari Fleischer: "Great news for Rudy." (Currently in sixth place at 3%)

...Gloria Borger: "Just the scenario he [Rudy] wants..."

Bill Clinton must think that people are stupid, Obama the establishment candidate? Edwards and Obama have no establishment support, Hillary is the one being pushed to us by all the establishment. What a lie? Bill the more you you lie the more we remember you not in a good way but bad one.
Mr president, you got no shame. Now I see the really Bill Clinton, man/girl I was so blind to support you!

For readers of TPM it's easy to forget (or even hard to believe) that the Democratic primary race isn't the #1 topic on the minds of most people, morning, noon, and night. As elections come to more and more states, in general Obama's overall numbers seem to be rising and HRC's falling--but these are wo different, albeit related, phenomena. Given the relatively narrow, even insignificant, policy gaps between them, HRC's main strength to date--name recognition--is likely to be her main anchor. There is a good deal of ancillary evidence that the electorate--esp. independents--is tired of the same-old, same-old Bush-Clinton-Bush back and forth and is ready for something, and someone, different. TPM would do us a favor by focusing on "attitude" polling questions to help us understand the evolution of the fluid "bottom line" results.

What are people's views on a recent former President who has been the leader of the Democratic party for 20 years tirelessly engaging in attacking a Democratic candidate for President?

I am looking for objective remarks here. Seriously, is it befitting someone in Bill Clinton's position to be doing this? I understand Hillary is his wife, and the nation can assume that he would be in support of her candidacy. She has the benefit of that association already.

Should he really be campaigning the way he is doing? If he were to simply praise his wife - perhaps that would be one thing - but there just seems to be something 'off" about a former president and the head of the Democratic Party attempting to discredit a viable candidate for leadership of his own party. It does not serve the interests of the party he leads to do so.

Why is this question not being posed seriously by anyone?

Surprising result for Obama. I think what you have to look at in the big picture is that in Michigan, Obama just overwhelmingly won the black vote at the same time that Hillary's overall draw from the poor increased. So what that seems to show is an increasing racial division which helps Hillary.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVERY TIME race or gender comes up, Hillary wins, even though the party loses. So Obama supporters need to be wise to this. The Clintons are going to try and keep race alive, and we need it to go away as best it can. Follow Barack's lead. Ixne on the acere.

Hillary is excellent on black issues and with her husband, the "first black president," always has been.

I think Edwards should stay in the race as long as he can. He brings another perspective to the debate with a degree of passion about his convictions that seems lacking in the other candidates. That being said, I'm still backing Obama.

I tend to agree, this is probably a bit high but we may be seeing a trend again. I would expect to see another one before this can be confirmed in any way though.

Matt--saying "I do not like the result so clearly the methodology is flawed" is not exactly a great argument. You should probably provide a bit better analysis for your assertion. Is there something in the internals?

Spencer, one word, nope. It is kind of sad when a former republican president, who was the father of the current president, has more class than the only former dem president in the last 27 years. I wish mr. bill would just go away. It's disgusting.

McCain and Edwards are two key figures. If Edwards drops out---it makes the 2025 delegates easier to obtain for hillary. So long as he and obama stay in the race, she will not get there.

If mcCain drops out, then Obama will be strengthened. Many independents will give up on the republicans completely. They will tend to gravitate towards obama.

Colonpowow---I have no role in obama's campaign---but i heard what they all said last night. I have to tone it down.

A typical Michael A. overreactive Clinton smear.

But Colonpowow: What do you think of President Clitnon's active campaigning against other democratic candidates for the presidency and leadership of the party he currently leads? Do you objectively consider his behavior appropriate in a former President or do you consider it in the interest of the Democratic party? Shouldn't the unofficial leader of the Democratic party be concerned about that party first and foremost?

Jane:

No problem with it whatsoever.

Bill Clinton is not the first president to actively support a certain Party candidate over others actively in a primary. That Reagan actively endorsed Bush in the 1988 primary comes first to mind.

I'm sure if Obama wins the nod, both the Clintons will be actively supporting him, not tearing the nation apart because the one-time leader of all Americans is engaging in some sort of unseemly partisan effort favoring Democratic Americans over Republican Americans.

Colonpowow:

Just because it has been done in the past, doesn't mean it is appropriate.

There is endorsing a candidate. There is actively supporting a candidate. There is also trashing the other candidates of the party you lead in attempt to leave but one option to Democratic voters. There are other leaders in the Democratic party who ultimately want to ensure that a Democrat is elected and will therefore support one person (or not) but stop short of attacking the others.

As a leader in the Democratic party, I get the sense that the President is solely concerned with the advancement of his family - not the success of the Democratic party - precisely because he seeks to discredit other viable candidates. That would make him a poor leader in the Democratic party.

The manner in which he is discrediting other candidates I find disconcerting from a former President of the United States.

And yes I also wonder about the propriety of President Clinton attacking the Republican candidate in a general election. Endorsing the Democrat is one thing, but it does strike me as crass for a former President to attack a candidate publicly during an election. There are plenty of others to do that. He is free to act behind the scenes.