Seriously, when are we going to give up on this shit? I've been a fan of both candidates from the beginning, believing that both can lead out country in the right direction. It's clear to me at this point that Obama is going to win the nomination. I like Hilary a lot and I think she has a great future as a leader in this country. However, the extent that posters are going to here to delegitimize Obama is disgraceful. We're all Democrats and more importantly progressives, let's unite behind our candidate.

Obama is clearly our nominee at this point, regardless of what happens with FL and MI. I have loved both of these candidates since the beginning, but I realize it's time to unite before one nominee, otherwise McCain is going to kick our ass.

Maybe Clinton would have run better against McCain, but we're never going to go because she's not going to run against him, even though some posters on this site actually believe that Senator Clinton can win this thing. It's a fact...Obama is going to be our nominee. Let's stop kidding ourselves and stop fighting so that we can start fighting our battle against this asshole McCain.

any data to directly answer your question, but did find this from May 4, which perhaps sheds some light on the situation:

One-third of likely voters say Obama's ties to Wright make them less likely to vote for him. But Obama isn't the only candidate with divisive connections: One-third of likely voters say Clinton's association with Bill Clinton, her husband and the former president, makes them less likely to support her.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2008-05-04-obama_N.htm

My feeling is that Obama and Clinton are on a fairly even par regarding the trustworthiness issue at this point.

What's really needed is polling showing how Obama does with different VP candidates.  There are Clinton voters who won't ever vote for Obama voters and there are Clinton voters who will vote for whoever the nominee is (i.e. Obama) - that poll doesn't break that number down.  There are Clinton voters who would only vote for Obama if Clinton is the VP candidate, and there are Clinton voters who will not eat green eggs and ham, Sam-I-Am.

It's the "Clinton voters who would only vote for Obama if Clinton is the VP candidate" that needs to be measured, and that above poll interests me as a statistics geek, but it doesn't come close to the real measure, if that's the purpose of the poll.

from the beginning. Carl Nyburg basically dismissed this diary out of hand, and challenged it's worth, so I responded with what about it was important to me.

The thing is that Jerome knows just as well as anyone that Hillary will not be the nominee (he can read the delegate numbers). You won't see him saying "she could still win" he knows she can't... so why is he actively trying to undermine the nominee... is it just spite? What he could be doing is trying to find what his weakness are, and then make suggestions about how to improve them. Maybe he could suggest a running mate.. the only problem with this is that a significant portion of the site traffic would disappear... the people who cover their ears and yell "lalalalala" every time some one points out that Hillary cannot win the nomination would go elsewhere... and Jerome might loose some revenue. So instead we have this farce... never mind that it hurts the party... it helps drive up traffic.

What's the spin? That Ickes voted to completely disenfranchise Florida? Because he did. That it's all her fault? I didn't say that.

He hasn't been able to win enough big states? Your point? He'll still win most of those states if he is the GE candidate. He has won the majority of pledged delegates. The metric by which a candidate will be chosen is delegates. I did say that according to the rules that the supers CAN overwhelmingly vote for Hillary but I also believe that will be highly unlikely. I just don't think the supers will want to overturn the pledged delegate vote. Of course, Clinton will argue otherwise, as is her right.

Let me ask you why is Hillary in this situation? Why can't she close the deal? Why can't she win the African-American and youth vote? Do you really think Clinton can win Ohio without massive AA support in Cleveland and Cincinnati? These questions are for the most part as absurb as the counterparts that are asked of Obama.

Here is a question that I am interested in an answer from you. If Clinton loses, will it be her own fault?

if she hadn't run an arrogant campaign that predicted in December that they would have it all won on 2/5.

When that didn't happen, she needed MI & FL, despite the fact that it was many of her supporters at the DNC who supported stripping those two states of all the delegates.

I know that when you belong to a cult it's hard to see the deficiences of your leader.  At least try.

it's not just me, he can't shame anyone into voting for him, he has to be not too proud to try. he can't win by not being John.  That has never worked. Kerry couldn't win over the real bush.  Kerry ran a very lofty campaign and connected with Chris Matthews, and not enough others. Americans aren't that 'rational,' they're going to be seeing him on tv for four years, they don't want a scold who doesn't think they're important enough to try to win over. It's trying, she keeps trying and that makes her popular.  She cares, she wants the job, she want to clean up Washington and put things right.  He isn't trying, he's lecturing and playing the transformative figure.  He made a mistake lecturing her on the gas tax idea, too many people liked it, and when he said it was stupid, he was saying everyone who liked it is stupid. Not the way to win voters.