The sooner we have a nominee, the sooner the bitterness will fade, the sooner that nominee can reach out to the others' supporters, and the sooner that we can go into the fall united.

Within 10 points. Not bad with weeks to go.

What does this mean: "Only 55% of Clinton supporters say they are even just somewhat likely to back Obama if he's the nominee, and the same goes for only 55% of Obama supporters if Hillary is the nominee."

This is bull! "they are even just somewhat likely to back"

So, all you bloggers who've been saying they don't think a long race necessarily hurt us in the fall? Whatcha think now?

This poll is meaningless. Of course partisans in the middle of a heated battle are not going to say, you know the other side is just as pleasing to me. People are focused on trying to have their person win, so they are not in a frame of mind to suspend their current combative state of mind.

Ask the question in Mid October, and then you will see an entirely different response.

Hillary! DROP OUT NOW YOU SELFISH PIECE OF SHIT!!

Despite his lies about wanting to be a Uniter,Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive "full assault" on Hillary's character.

This is why Hillary needs to get out of the race. There is really no path to victory. Okay, there is one. That would be to completely deny the first african american candidate for president the nomination by overriding his groundswell of support with the house of lords. The fallout would be incomprehensible and could very well lead to the destruction of the democratic party. Therefore, it seems fairly obvious that she either needs to quit now or run a nice guy campaign like huckabee did while he knew it was impossible to win.

BTW, count me in as an Obama supporter that would write in Obama's name as my choice if the nomination was stolen from him by the house of lords. I won't vote republican, but I won't support the establishment either.

One thing to keep in mind is the "pass" the media gives to McCain, much like they did for Bush in 2000. HE gives them picnics. They like him. They know him too well to print they same things they will about a democrat.

Also remember, the amount of lies and distorted truths the media made about Gore, most of which many people still believe. The Daily Howler has all of it documented, if you care.

If you think the election in November will be a cakewalk, you're wrong.

If you think the democrats can't alienate an electorate that would have to hold tehir noses to vote for a member of the DLC (Hillary), you're wrong.

Or for a Obama, or for a woman, or for a person of color, or for...

this election can be lost. People may stay home.

I was pretty jazzed about Edwards. Not so much about what is left. The more they tear each other down, the more I think about how neither really represents me.

Why should I give false approval to a person who doesn't represent me? Where's the spark that gives me action?

Fear of McCain, the guy the conservatives hate? The guy that thought of being a democrat? The guy who the media loves and lavish on?

Dream on. Nothing is for sure.

The Clinton's are LOSING by every critieria, with only the HOPE that Superdelegates MIGHT go against the wishes of voters and pledged Delegates. They KNOW their chances of defeating Obama are statiscally NIL. When BOTH Clintons praise the integrity of John McCain, while literally calling him a respected FRIEND of Hillary's, what are they doing that benefits the DEMOCRATIC PARTY! WHY even mention McCain? WHY though ommission IMPLY that Obama doesn't love his country? The Clinton's aren't being loyal Democrats, they are being self-serving EGOTISTS who care only about themselves at the expense of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY! They aren't just being divisive, they are deliberately being DESTRUCTIVE to the DEMORATIC PARTY'S chances of defeating John McCain! That is a FACT!

It is statements like this that will keep Obama from ever becoming President.

I would think a lot of African-Americans would be extremely upset with not only Hillary Clinton, but the Democratic party if Obama loses the nomination, despite having more elected delegates. I believe a large portion of that community will just sit such an election out under those circumstances.

But nothing short of the entire African-American community supporting the Democratic Nominee will ensure a Democratic victory in November. It would literally be suicide for the Democratic Party to award the nomination to Hillary over the votes of the people. (And its not the same in reverse, because unlike Obama, Hillary would not have an election taken away from her that she "won" - with more elected delegates).

I think every superdelegate knows that. Its why Hillary continuing on with this campaign assures only that she will have less influence in the party in the end and Bill Clinton will have lost much of his legacy. For what?

And I wonder how long the superdelegates now supporting Hillary are going to hang on for the ride? When its now obvious Obama will get the nomination in the end, which superdelegate wants to be on the USS Hillary as it sinks in the North Atlantic?

Yea, Pennslyvania will go to Hillary, but if Obama wins in North Carolina and Indiana, it will give the Superdelegates all they need to jump ship and nominate Obama. They will do it then, before the Kentucky primary (which he will likely lose).

"And, unfortunately, I am afraid that the increasingly unhinged thinking..."

Hey, NC Steve. Nice job parroting Michelle Malkin. We need more people calling each other mentally ill. It really raises the level of the debate. I suppose it doesn't matter, since the comment section here has become a cesspool, anyway.

dembillc, I live in Pennsylvania and we're hearing and seeing a lot of Obama ads; I haven't encountered any of the negative, personally assaulting ads you're talking about. All the spots Obama is running in my area are relentlessly positive and on message, focusing on his bio, the issues, hope, etc. Can you provide links to these personal assaults you're referring to?

The time for party unity was long before this. I know so many of you out here just hate her freakin guts, but like it or not she was the candidate of demographic base of the Democratic party. It was Obama's candidacy that split the party. Not hers. If she had wiped Obama out on super tuesday the party would be united, for better or worse, around her. Hillary could have dropped out after Iowa & it never would have made a difference. Obama has never been able to expand beyond his core demographic constituency enough to create a consensus, guaranteeing a split democratic party in November. Doubt it? Read the exit polls.It's the same story over & over again. Or perhaps the Pew report spelling out the fissures in the base. Polls that show McCain v Obama tied in freakin Massachusetts? The base isn't behind him, never has been and will chose McCain over him. Not because they are mad about mean things people said in chat rooms, or they think Wright is scary, or that they are racist fucks, but because they don't think someone with as little experience as Obama can run the government. Obama split the party, no one else.

I live in France which has a president who was elected in May at 53%+ and is now at a wobbly 37% with major defeats for his party in recent city hall elections. The performance since election hasn't matched up his speeches. He used a lot of "positive" messages, focusing on the "future" instead of on his past record. Like Obama, he had a lot of money to spend on what I call "Glitzkriegs", glitzy ad campaigns ALL OVER THE PLACE with lots of emphasis on slogans instead of discussing issues. I will vote for Obama -- but not in 2008.
Obama's got to put in the work and prove his worth. My vote will not be sold for a song, no matter how much I like Stevi Wonder and Will I Am.
I grew up in the Pittsburgh area and listened non-stop to WAMO, loved Motown, incorporated so many messages of love and resilience and self-worth and so many issues that African Americans can often speak more eloquently about because they've "been there." And I honestly think that it is because I incorporated the messages that I no longer see them as necessarily black in their source. And I also see them as "words just words", preferring action and past record to pretty speeches.
The other thing that I would like to say is that the Clintons got unjustly smmeared by an extremely skillful and astute campaign director of Obama's named Axelrod (not 100% of spelling). When Bill Clinton said that Obama's "claim" to superior thinking on the Iraq question was a fairy tale, that had NOTHING to do with race but on the fact that Obama took the speech off his website because he wasn't getting political traction out of it. Axelrod was, however, waiting in the wings to hit the Clintons broadside. I don't entirely blame him. That's what Obama's paying him for.

"If at the convention neither candidate clinches the nomination even after several rounds of voting, and their difference in delegates (since that is the only thing that matter in the actual nomination process) is less than the typical margin of error in polls, say 2-3%, then both side must agree that it is a statistical tie"

There is a HUGE difference between a poll and actual votes!!! Its not a "statistical tie" if Obama has more actual delegates. Hillary people- Its over. I'm not trying to be mean, but it is over. You can't take the nomination away from the first African-American nominee who has more elected delegates. No one is going to allow that to happen.

Its over. Please stop dividing the party. Play nice, have fun in Pennsylvania, but after you lose North Carolina by 20 points, do the right thing, withdraw. Otherwise you will be known forever as the individual who tried to divide the party. Its over.

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I have supported Hillary Clinton because I think she's the most qualified Democratic candidate. Also, I don't know about the rest of you, but I remember the 90's as good times with a good economy, a well-run govt., disappearing deficits, and expanding prosperity. I could care less about the Clintons' sex lives. I have hesitated to support Barack Obama because of his lack of experience (a state senator? Come on guys . . .) but I thought all along that I would go ahead and support him if he became the eventual nominee. However, it has struck me as somewhat arrogant on his part that he thinks he's absolutely, without a doubt, the best, most qualified person to lead us out of the mess we're in. He has absolutely nothing to show for his short stint in the U.S. Senate, no significant legislation, no bipartisan support, etc.

Last week, I hear about the atrocious comments of Reverend Wright over the past 20 years, all while Obama has been an active member of his church. And then I listen to Obama's speech. Yes, he does make lovely, transcendant speeches. But you know what? If my "spiritual advisor" said racist, wacko things like this, I'd get up, gather up my family and leave to find another church home. I wouldn't continue to listen to this kind of rhetoric or have my children exposed to it. And who, exactly, is the "typical white person"? No one else would get away with a statement like that. What kind of person is Barack Obama, really? Lots of nice words, but actions speak way louder for me than words. He had a choice: he could have spoken out or left but he didn't. He stayed for 20 years. That clinches things for me. It says it all.

Guess what, this Democrat who has never voted outside the party will not be voting for Barack Obama. I'll hold my nose and vote for John McCain, a Republican if Obama's the Democratic nominee. Time will probably stop when I do it (or at least there will be an earthquake). I never in my entire life thought I would vote Republican. But I'm not voting for Obama. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is thinking this way. I think he's a phony and not at all what he has represented himself to be. We really don't know anything about him at all. Actions speak louder than words.

I am beginning to wonder if there's no longer a place for middle-of-the-road (or center-left) people in 2008's Democratic party. Yes, I have a Masters' degree and am affluent but I am moderate in my views. If there's no room for anyone in the party but far-left progressives, there's no room for me or lots of other people.

Help, are there any Democratic leaders, pollsters, etc. out there listening or reading? Please save our party from the trainwreck we're fast approaching. Do something, please! Al Gore, where are you?

To all the Obama lovers - I have been trying to get some feel re the General Election map/plan that Obama has. I have written to numerous blogs, press people to get some info as how exactly Obama intends/expects to win in November 2008.

According to my reading, he is not going to win in Florida (with or without Bill Richardson) and he is not going to win in OH and PA and MI.

How does he get where he wants to go?

PlumWdhse in CT

If we Democrats can't stand to listen to each other with respect, at least, then our party may well fall apart and we may lose this chance to elect a better president than McCain.

Hillary supporters would do well to question why you're so willing to close your minds to those of us who think Obama has real strengths. Do you assume that we're all bad people, or stupid? Are you idealizing your candidate or looking clearly at both of them?

We Obamaphiles also need to respect that you Hillary supporters have your reasons for your choice, and that indeed Obama has limitations too.

It's very easy to fall into kind of emotional hysteria about this, and see the "other guy" as being almost superhumanly bad.

Here we are--the 4000th soldier just died in Iraq, a piece of the Antarctic ice sheet the size of seven Manhattans just broke into the sea fifteen years ahead of schedule, and it's been confirmed again that Social Security will peg out just when I'm ready to retire. So why on earth are we Democrats confusing each other for The Enemy and nitpicking each other to death? Worse, why can so many of us so easily get swept up into believing that this media-frenzy crap really means anything important to anyone?

Why be blind to the flaws of your "own" candidate, and focus with so much contempt on the flaws of the "other"? Both have their flaws, no doubt. It's just a question of how you weigh them in the balance.

I won't enjoy voting for Clinton if she's the candidate, because I really do question her judgment, her ability to manage people effectively and make good appointments, and her ability to lead rather than follow the public whim of the moment on big issues. And I think she's too willing to damage the party by attacking its leading candidate. On the other hand, I do respect her mind and character, and will have to just take a leap of faith and give her my vote next November if she's the candidate, and hope she surprises me in a good way.

But if there's a chance that Obama can be the candidate, I hope he wins and I support him, not because I look down on her and idealize him, but because I think he has a rare talent for getting ahead of people, holding a vision that's reality-based and also constructively hopeful, and I think he might help this country get out of our crash positions by challenging us to take responsibility for ourselves.

I think this quality of mind, and what I see of his character, qualify him for the office.

Which leaves us where? Do we perpetually throw up candidates who appeal to the poor dumb working stiffs? Sounds dreary, and a recipe for stasis.

Or do we try to elect a rational, intelligent, compassionate, complex man who can be inspirational (and can raise a boatload of money) and also offers a chance to begin to bridge the racial divide?

If not now, when? If change is possible, what would it look like?

Things I just noticed:

The most bitter Clinton supporters seem to have started paying close attention to the race since around the Ferraro interviews; thus they missed the pre-Ferraro Clinton attacks, and think Obama started everything by reading race into Ferraro's statements. I've been watching since mid-January, and remembered a period of a few weeks when even the news outlets wondered if Obama was ever going to fight back.

Also, it's finally sunk in that many, many Clinton supporters truly think Obama is an empty suit. They discount his qualifications, his detailed policy statements and plans (completely laid out in all their tedious glory on his website), and actually believe that his rhetoric is a sure sign that he's a lying liar.

I'm now entertaining a moment of doubt: can even Obama win over Democrats who're convinced that he's not just wrong, but completely and utterly incompetent to so much as wipe his own ass? Is Clinton's plan to damage him irreparably but let him get nominated, and then when her attacks cause him to get crushed by McCain, start campaigning for 2012?

I didn't believe this was likely up to now, but I think it may actually be true. It's a great plan if she can pull it off. Great for her--but not for the USA. Too bad for us.

sorry that was supposed to be in reply to phillygirl in reply to me.

You know, the other thing the Obama people don't seem to get is that the framing of Hillary as disingenuous, divisive, untrustworthy, etc. that they have internalized so completely are essentially a retread of Republican attacks on the last Democratic president we had. I know that is probably impossible for most Obama people to have any sense of just how offensive & vicious this has been has been on other side, or that it it even happened, Obama being above that and all. For those of you who doubt it I would remind you of Obama's director of communication, Mr. Gibbs, last piece of work on the national stage, the 527 add of Osama Bin laden conflated with the image of Howard Dean.

Well rjr. If it's not a race war you're suggesting (and I beleive there is an element of this in many Obamites) then you are suggesting he get the nomination largely out of collective guilt. Because he is black he gets a pass? Ridiculous. I fear that, to a certain extent, you are correct and that would be huge mistake. Imagine giving the guy the nomination as some sort of reparations for slavery. Then again, if he gets it can we tell all blacks to finally shut up about slavery? Just curious.

I am a Hillary supporter but I would not stay home if Obama is the nominee. This race is too important to put McBush in the White House. This man is too old and too dangerous for the position. And if anyone has their doubts of him going into Iran they have no idea of what he is about. This guy comes from a military family, his idol is Teddy Roosevelt (someone who advocated military action in other countries to show America's might), is cozy with the Israeli lobby and the military industrial complex, is being supported by the Christian Right who also support invasion as part of their Armeggdon scenario, and has shown he is bereft of principles standing in his way to obtain the presidency. So saying that we would sit this one out because of petulance is foolhardy. McCain should not be elected.