Except for the 50+% negatives; the inability to hold WI, IA, WA; the inability to compete in VA or CO, and the fact that she is no longer a candidate for VP. Other than that, maybe.

Clinton is full of shit. I read her comments on the left side of the screen and on the right I see polls showing Obama cleaning her clock in nationwide polls. She's as dedicated to truthiness as George Bush.

If polls won elections, then she'd be the victor.

Unfortunately - it's getting elected that wins elections, and at that Hillary Clinton isn't so strong.

Also:

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

Ruh roh, Raggy.

Obviously, she's overstating her case. The kernel of truth is that for the past two weeks her electoral map has looked better than Obama's -- so if the general election was tomorrow, she would have a better chance of winning than him. (See www.fivethirtyeight.com.) Of course, the election isn't tomorrow, and for the entire campaign prior to two weeks ago, Obama had a better electoral map. And it's quite arguable that Hillary is doing better now because Obama is getting double-teamed by Hillary and the entire GOP and she's not getting attacked by anyone -- as she is increasingly seen as having no chance at the nomination, and as she is increasingly ignored, she becomes a "Generic Democrat" in people's minds and for that reason is smoking McCain in the polls.

Eric, how about some analysis of the facts instead of the just repeating Clinton b.s.? There are a number of polls that show Clinton in a close race with John McCain, many within the margin of error, not including a few that show Barack Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Clinton

All evidence says that Hillary is either a bald-faced liar or completely nuts. Perhaps both.

She reminds me of the losing football coach who argues that his team won in every statistical category except the score.

Why is this posted as a news item?

I think the Clinton's are gearing up for their new comedy career. This stuff is hilarious. Comedy Gold! How do they keep a straight face?

I too have always believed that pandering was a sign of strength.

Clinton strategy - damned rented finners!

The ONLY tyhing that Hillary is stronger at....LYING...she is a MONSTER AND A LIAR

I've been asking myself the clintons' question about who would be the strongest dem candidate in the fall for a year and a half now. Every bit of evidence, every poll, all analysis, etc., etc., point to any democrat breathing other than the clintons. It really is pathetic how these people lie. They are true narcissists. A true narcissist lies about everything to make themselves look wonderful and the clintons do it with abandon.

By the way, I find it repulsive how they keep changing the rules. First it was all about delegates until they got their clocks cleaned on February 5 and now its about popular vote. If it was about popular vote all along, obama would have had a completely different strategy and would be ahead by 2 million plus in the popular vote now. The clintons truly are despicable.

The Clintons know that we know that they're lying. They know that the MSM knows that they're lying. But the people at their rallies don't know they're lying--the locals in South Dakota, Montana and Puerto Rico. Take into consideration the high percentage of low-information voters. Where do they get that "low-information"?

A little problem I have with the Obama campaign is that they don't
combat the lies with any level of strength at the local level.

I also don't think they have a strong surrogate response team on the MSM.

Don't get the wrong idea. I think the Obama campaign has been superior.

Maybe we can offer the campaign suggestions on what we think they could do better.

I find it funny that the most important piece of evidence, known as "delegates", is exactly where she is not stronger.

Same goes with # of superdelegates, polls, states won, REAL popular vote, FAKE popular vote, public opinion, and MSM coverage.

I think she is winning amongst racists, but then again, that former Klu Klux Klan member endorsed Obama.

"But the people at their rallies don't know they're lying--the locals in South Dakota, Montana and Puerto Rico. Take into consideration the high percentage of low-information voters. Where do they get that "low-information"?

A little problem I have with the Obama campaign is that they don't
combat the lies with any level of strength at the local level."

Your Concern seems a bit misplaced. First of all the beltway Assumption is that these are low info voters. Just because DC pundits dont know of them does not make the reverse true, as they do have working TV sets, the intertubes and newspapers in these "remote" areas.

Secondly the grassroots efforts of Obama, which of course has led to major $$$$ kind of refutes the meme of his not going to the local level, doesnt it?

There is something deeply disturbing here about the Clintons.

No one is asking them to bow out of the race: not pundits, not the DNC, not Obama. But that is their meme, their mantra. Casting themselves as put upon, come from behind, the "Comback" kids, bouncing back from adversity, a personal legend.

Nowhere is there here respect for party, foresight for the prospects for Obama vs McCain in the general. For a different candidate (the rest of them, in fact) it's been, "I can't win, or I see X being the nominee, so for the good of the party, I'll step back, and perhaps support X." It's been that way for years. What is shocking about the Clintons' relentless strategy of Never Say Die (unless it's Obama) is that it has never been as caustic as this, and yet the political will behind it is so timeless.

Once again, her comments are being taken out of context.

Just wondering: Why doesn't the media understand that Hillary is no longer a major player in this?

If folks stopped responding to her antics, wouldn't she then stop this attention-seeking behavior? I feel like we're enabling/encouraging her. People tend to stop inappropriate behavior when they see it no longer works.

There is a difference between trying to frame the question in public and then what happens at the trial.

The superdelegate and pledged delegate count shows that Obama is winning the debate with the folks who are actually doing the deciding. Again, until June 3d Hillary is doing nothing wrong. So folks are letting her push the envelope and make a fool of herself in order to respect the process. But soon after 6/3 the party will make sure that Obama has an iron clad majority. We have about 2 weeks left of this mess and then it will be over.

If she's stronger, why is Obama beating her by almost 20 points in Montana ? And why is he beating her in Colorado and Wisconsin, while she does not ? I believe he could win Montana as well.

She needs to drop out now. I can't even stand to listen to her.

I meant to say Obama is beating McCain in Wisconsin and Colorado.

Actually, Clinton is the candidate most likely to be indicted for $2 million of election fraud stemming from her last Senate race once the November election is over. Hell, Clinton is more Republican than than Ted Stevens.

Maybe she means strong like in body odor or cheap perfume.

"You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate?" Clinton said. "And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall."

Indeed.

And Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Mission Accomplished.

No one could have foreseen that the levees wouldn't hold in New Orleans.

There is no global warming.

Evolution is a secular humanist myth.

Florida and Michigan are matters of principle.

"Hard-working white voters" are the only ones who count.

All equally delusional.

All equally unfit to be president of the United States.

Liar liar liar liar liar liar liar

Pantsuits on fire!

I believe Hillary is...

While her credibility has all but evaporated, it continues to amaze that even in this case she is prone to wild exaggeration. No, it's not some but all of the evidence. Every single bit of it.

Pathetic is as pathetic does...

Shrillary lies again!

whoda thunk it?

Pity the Poor Pantsuit Victim!

With this post, TPM has done what the mainstream media does all the time, and I think this is destroying our political system. A lie was posted without qualification or rebuttal; it was posted just as it would be if it were the truth.

That kind of reporting leads to "sniper fire in Bosnia"; when politicians believe nobody will call them on a lie, they lie, and then embellish the lie and expand the lie.

An honest press could restore honesty in politics in one election if they demonstrated lies will be uncovered in the same new cycle as they are first reported.

Honestly, Hillary is right. The real evidence does say she is the stronger candidate. The numbers were severely skewed in caucus states, which is where Obama got big percentage gains. Hillary did best overall in the primarys (votes of people). And everyone seems to forget that Florida and Michigan ARE actually states, and THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY. Their votes should be counted.

The media wants to paint Obama as the winner, as do these blog sites (proClinton comments often don't make it past moderators).

Obama has paid delegates and superdelegates more money over the years than has Clinton. He claims to not take money from lobbyists or large corporations and this isn't true. He is a master of the game, but he isn't the real deal, as many like to proclaim. The skeletons in his closet will come out before November and it may cost the dems the big one in November, and this would be a real tragedy.

Hmmm... ALL the evidence?

The evidence shows Obama has run a better organized campaign with a better strategy.

The evidence shows Obama can raise far more cash for his campaign than Hillary can.

The evidence shows national polls with OBAMA in the lead.

Anyone else like to add to the list?

It's become a vicious circle:

I'm the stronger candidate! I'm the stronger candidate!

Okay. We've heard you. Enough already.

What do you mean, enough already? There are people who want me to quit, but I'm going all the way. I'm the stronger candidate!

Fine. Do you think maybe you could concentrate on policy issues rather than continuing the mantra that you're stronger? You know, kind of raise the dialog?

Oh, some people want me to stop with my message, but I'm speaking for the people that really matter.

But all you're doing is talking about yourself. Don't you get it by now, it's not about you.

I'm the stronger candidate!

Nevermind.