As I'm sure the Clinton campaign would point out these polls were not done in Hillary's strongest state: the State of Denial.

Until pollsters start polling the State of Denial voters like Rae, Gottalife and Godzilla's opinions won't be measured, and therefore the polls will not be accurately delusional.

Is this excellent news for Hillary?

But...but...that would mean Gibson was wrong...

Go some way? Go all the way.

But don't worry - supers aren't buying her argument, only CNN and MSNBC are

But, but, but, Greg - I thought you were pro-Hillary?!?!

This post does not fit that model - please explain? Do these numbers somehow secretly help HRC?

Very interesting numbers. The fact is that EITHER of these Democrats would have a tough fight against McCain. That has been obvious for a long time.

The sooner the Democrats get behind their nominee and get him ready for this fight, the better. We are losing precious days and weeks and inflicting one blow after another on ourselves by allowing this to drag out in a last ditch, bitter struggle by the Clintons -- a self-serving, even solipsitic struggle that interacts with noxious media dynamics. I am one of the few Obama supporters who has defended the putative judgemental role of the Superdelegates -- believing there should be a category of people who make decisions based on their sense of what is good for the party as a whole. But I am changing my mind, because these folks are proving evasive and dilatory. They are not moving in a timely way, but are hiding in the weeds awaiting some electoral conclusion that will not come.

After next Tuesday, if the Supers keep delaying, the Democrats will find themselves in another media-driven set of racially charged arguments about whether Puerto-Rican popular vote margins should or should not count in "proving" Clinton more electable! Hard to think of a more destructive argument to have -- at a time when Obama should be visiting Latino communities in the Southwest.

Like it or not, we know our nominee -- and we ought to wrap this up and let him and the party get ready for the general election. Hillary and Clinton are determined to force the Superdelegates to tip one way or another -- and the Supers should do that sooner, not later.

I'm telling you:

McCain-Clinton '08

No Veep Slot for Hillary
By Dick Morris

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/no_veep_slot_for_hillary.html

It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. It would not help him get elected, it would drag all the Clinton controversies into the general election, and having her down the hall in the West Wing would be a recipe for disaster, dissension and civil war. Other than that, it's a hell of an idea!

Start with the election. There are two kinds of people who backed Hillary in the primaries: her original supporters and those who joined her later in the game. Her original backers are all solid Democrats whose arms would fall off before they would back anyone who is pro-life. They are true believers, feminists, pro-choice advocates, older party loyalists who would prefer Hillary, may have doubts about Obama, but will always fall in line and vote Democratic. The more recent converts are people who are turned off by Obama's connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and who worry that he might be a closet black radical. Their latent racial fears were heightened by the revelations about Obama's links with Wright, and they voted for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket will do nothing to assuage these fears. One wonders if these blue-collar, downscale, racially motivated voters would actually support Hillary against John McCain if she were to win the nomination. They certainly wouldn't follow her into Obama's camp just because she was on the ticket.

Obama's key need in the election is to demonstrate his experience and ability to do the job despite only minimal federal experience. Running with someone whose experience he, himself, derided will hardly solve this problem. Voters only credit Hillary with having experience when her record is compared with Obama's almost total lack of a record. Against McCain, she would do nothing to close the experience gap. Better for Obama to choose a senator with long tenure -- a Chris Dodd (Conn.) or Joseph Biden (Del.) -- just as Dukakis chose Bentsen, Bush chose Cheney, and Kennedy chose Johnson.

If Obama put Hillary on the ticket, it would re-raise all of the questions about Bill's income sources, what he did for Dubai, what he did for Frank Guistra -- the Canadian mining executive who gave millions to the Clinton library and whom Bill introduced to the president of Kazakhstan -- and whether he will make public his library donors. Who needs those issues, especially when Obama is trying to wage an anti-Washington-influence-peddling campaign?

Finally, having Hillary in the West Wing would be a nightmare. There is no way that Obama could trust her. She would be a throwback to the old days when the president did not consult the vice president on anything, a situation which led Vice President John Nance Garner, FDR's VP during his first two terms, to call the office "not worth a pitcher of warm piss."

If Obama got into trouble, he would have to look over his shoulder at Hillary and he would always have both Bill and Hillary around to show him up, hog the limelight, generate controversy with ill-considered remarks, and make life difficult. Would Bill stop giving speeches and making money? Would his ties with Arab nations and questionable American and Canadian businessmen end? Or would Obama have to explain his VP's husband's business dealings over and over again.

And, the ultimate question: Can Bill Clinton be put back into the bottle? Is this recent spate of angry, finger-wagging bursts of inappropriate outrage a permanent fixture of his public persona? Does Obama want to take the risk of having him on the team and having to account for his conduct?

Hillary would add no votes to Obama, she would dog his campaign with scandal, she would be disloyal in office, and her husband would be, at best, a huge distraction. Case closed.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.”

Combine this with the recent post showing Obama out-performing both Kerry and Gore with white voters, and Hillary's argument that only she can win enough of the white vote to prevail in November falls apart.

Truly, I have minimal worries about November, whoever is the nominee. The GOP will be unable to mobilize the evangelicals and get the type of turn-out they had in 2004. The GOP base will probably not defect, but many might stay home - they are still not as excited about McCain as they were about Dear Leader W in '04.

Additionally, with Obama, Democratic turn-out will soar. I know negative campaigning can sometimes work, but when it comes to mobilization and GOTV, it is easier to get something out to support something (an Obama candidacy in 2008) than to oppose something (a second Bush term). I mean, seriously, how many people were really excited about John Kerry?

More people are sexist than racist. That's a fact.

Praise Obama for not EVER making this part of his election strategy, unlike Hillary.

She knows she can't win, and yet she's hurting our candidate.... why?

Some things don't change.

Godzilla will post crap.

And Greg will be accused of some sort of bias, ineptitude or a combination thereof.

And, TrollCritic3000 will continue to post pure comedy gold.

: )

you mean hillary;s main argument is complete bullshit?

i'm shocked, shocked i say.

i wonder if anyone has sent these poll numbers over to the clinton campaign asking for comment.

For all the buzz and excitement that Obama generates, 40,000 more people have voted for Hillary Clinton.

I know it's hard for Obama supporters to recognize that FACT.

Godzilla nearly "endorsed" Obama? Unless he/she is a superdelegate, such an "endorsement" is worth about as much as a nod from my dead cat. Total Craftsman.

Heh. I love how she's dropped a point in the prediction markets since winning big in W.Va.

Stick a fork in her, she's done.

She also won the support of most voters under age 30, a group that has typically voted heavily for Mr. Obama throughout this election. She also edged out Mr. Obama among college graduates and higher-income voters, also groups Mr. Obama has relied on.

..... from NY Times total results

Since when is Obama's name Uncommitted? How is it that Obama supporters are able to divine the intentions of Michigan's Uncommitted voter? Isn't this wishful thinking?

Unless Obama and Clinton run together, we are looking at a President McCain.

So Obama supporters: Do you want to beat Hillary and have Obama as the nominee or do you want to beat McCain?

Wake up folks! The goal is in November. Too many Hillary folks are ticked off. Obama and Hillary must run together if we want to win in November.

If you don't get what I am saying, then it's obvious you don't get politics.

Unless Obama and Clinton run together, we are looking at a President McCain.

O please.

What absolute rubbish. If Hillary supporters want to give up healthcare (a cornerstone for her campaign), the economy, a woman's right to choose, and even ending the war that she voted for, they won't vote for McCain. If they do or don't vote, they are doing exactly what Hillary does not want. So they are being disloyal to the core.

Remember when Little Miss Pandersuit said this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

If you don't get what I am saying, then it's obvious you don't get politics.

Posted by DownriverDem

Yes, I get it. If Hillary is not on the ticket, the sixty percent of hillary's voters who are female are going to look at McCain and say---that's the guy I want choosing the next two supreme court judges, and his trophy wife is really cute. I like the experience he demonstrates as he explains how long we need to stay in iraq. His healthcare plan is truly inspirational to me. He's the man.

What's beautiful about this is not only that it debunks Hillary's prime argument -- with Obama and Clinton doing the same among working class whites -- but also that it shows the Democrat can lose to McSame by seven points among white working class voters and still beat him by seven points (in the Obama-McSame match-up) overall.

Obviously, Obama should and, I'm sure, will compete aggressively for white working class voters in the general election, but he doesn't have to win a majority of their votes to get elected president. Which also debunks another of Hillary's arguments.

It's wonderful how reality consistently intrudes on Hillary's bullshit story line.

Obama cannot win without her.....I know.

Thanks to McBush's party and the Clinton reign, the number of 'working whites' has declend. So who cares what they think. Let them move to China so and get their jobs back.

Meh. Sick of polls. Hypotheticals. I like results better. Stupid anticipation games.....

I'm a Hillary supporter.
I'll vote for Obama (miultiple times if possible - only JOKING!)if he's the nominee.

But ... Don't you folks realize that the decision THE PARTY (ie Superdelegates) makes could very well (I say LIKELY) determine whether we win or lose in November?

The question, "Can a black candidate win the presidency?" is a real question. The last thing I wanted to see this year, with the absolutely critical need to win in November, is to turn the election into a referendum on race in America.

You may wish the country was racially neutral, but wishes don't win. Remember this country gave almost half (cheating put them over) its' votes to GW Bush - TWICE! The rethuglicans will make what happened to John Kerry in 2004 look like a picnic when the get hold of Obama (I lifted that from an LATimes letter - and it's so true).

To be idealistic and true to yourself is very important. But winning in November 2008 is THE ISSUE. And Hillary/Obama (in that order) can and will win.

If we lose with Obama as nominee, we'll all have to flee to Mexico. We will never recover as a country, and probably also not as a party.

Let's be smart, and win this thing. - and set Obama up for 8 years VP, and President in 2016. I think that would be a slam-dunk.

Steve - 60 year old CA (OC) white guy

Thanks for your insightful analysis, mphillip! I couldn't agree more! Cheers!