Hillary Clinton can not only defeat John McCain, she will. Period.

Mark, I completely disagree with you. That Hillary is unelectable spin is old . She can and will defeat McCain in the general election once she is nominated. A vote for Hillary is a vote for real change in America. Not just Obama's rhetoric and message of hope with no substance.
All my family and hundreds of my friends all support Hillary and will be proud to call her Madame President.

Hillary 08

Jordan, you and Milo continue to fly in the face of reality. I don't make up these polls -- the American people do. I suggest you too head to CNN to view the Bill Schneider video piece on the polls regarding Hillary, Barack and McCain. I tried to link it here, but ABC understandably won't permit it. The piece is called "Who can beat McCain."

Mark, with that logic, you are saying the other half will vote for Hillary.
She is moving up in the polls every day against McCain.

I'd rather stick to the man who was right about the Iraq War in 2003, than the woman who was wrong about it then. Or the man who is so inclined to protect our civil liberties, and the man who has had an internet and grassroots following SINCE THIS TIME LAST YEAR.

Vote for freedom, based on knowledge -- NOT based on what she said. Actions speak louder than words.

Sorry Mark, but the American people DO NOT make up the polls -- the pollsters do. Ever wonder why you disagree with the polls that say Hillary is ahead? Or how you get all giddy when the polls say Barack is ahead? It's because like the polls, you hear what you want to hear. Never mind that the polls, like the punsters have'nt gotten anything right lately. And by the way, I see all the stations are predicting Barack success in the latest round of caucuses/primaries because a lot of the voters are Black. And yet, these same media types feel no shame at all of accusing Bill Clinton of constantly bringing up the "race issue." It was outright propaganda then and it's the same now. I thought of another thing: I haven't seen such hatefullness as that coming from the Obama supporters since those heady days when so many just luvved Georgie Bush to death and effective shut down the old Yahoo boards with their slime. I feel like I'm on a roll now: so much for the whole Ted Kennedy, Caroline, Maria Shriver hype, huh? Not to mention Barack suddenly learning three Spanish words to try and get that vote in California. Not to worry though. If Oprah can buy this election, god knows she'll try.

If the Obama and Clinton comes to the convention, the decision will be clear.
Hillary will be put forward because she is Bill's wife a former president. The bad thing is that Americans would have then been robbied of the CHANGE they are looking for, but who cares? Sen. Ted Kennedy is alive as the conscience of the Nation.
The dangerous part of it all is that Republican will win and sufferness continues for another 4 or 8 years.
The will of GOD will be done.

Jordan - it may be old, but its not spin. Independents decide elections. Independents like McCain, and they also like Obama.

The Republicans usually don't nominate candidates who independents like. Nominating another candidate than Obama is basically giving the race away.

And don't get me wrong. I thought Clinton was unelectable even before seeing McCain surge to the top of that race. But that has to do with her negatives, and her unequaled ability to energize the GOP. All of those reasons are still there. But now we can add that between McCain and Clinton, independents clearly prefer McCain.

Time will show the wiser, druggstohr.

Pre-caucus polls -- as in New Hampshire -- are notoriously prone to false skewing, by their very nature. The types of nationwide polls to which I'm referring, typically are not. In addition, that same 45-50% of Americans who consistently say in polls that they will not vote for Clinton *under ANY circumstances* has remained *extraordinarily consistent* for the last year! In other words, she's gaining absolutely NO new converts to her campaign from beyond her hardcore Democratic base. The same CANNOT be said of Obama, who has continued to to attract more independents and even some Republicans to his campaign.

Tell me: When is the last time ANY ONE heard a Republican say they'd vote for *Clinton* (other than the bogus verbal flatulence of Coulter and Limbaugh)? I've yet to hear ONE....

Why is everyone refering to Obama's "I was right on the war in 2003?" note. he had NO VOTE... He COULD NOT VOTE. He was NOT facing the entire country when you would have been drug through the mud if you didn't support the war effort...

Because, Michael, Obama was a candidate for Senate at the time. I think its more extraordinary to hear a candidate take on an unpopular (at the time) national position than an elected official.

Mrs. Clinton just picked up 75,000 new supporters in 3 days who put their money where their mouth is. A large percentage of these supporters are new and supported either John Edwards or Mr. Obama at one time. Hillary is doing much better than you claim in moving forward to secure the nomination.
You factual reporting always seems to show an Obama bias. Why is that?

But that said, yours was an odd comment on this thread. Seems everyone was talking about electability and not Iraq.

Yes, Jordan, I will support Clinton if she legitimately defeats Obama. She'd be infinitely better than McCain -- even though she can't beat him.

That said, I profoudly disagree with your assertion that this is somehow "Hillary's time," and by extension, not Barack's. *Profoundly.* Who are you to so say? For whom do you speak? Not me. And not for the throngs of Obama supporters with whom I caucused last week on a frigidly cold, snowy night, as my state's Democratic voters *crushed* Mrs. Clinton....

Jordan, unless you know something I don't, Mark isn't a reporter. He's just another of us knuckleheads here on the blog message boards. And I mean all of us - who are here, rather than doing something productive with our time.

Also, small point, but new contributors don't necessarily equal new supporters. My guess is the vast majority of new contributors were existing supporters, who suddenly realized their inevitable candidate was facing a cash crunch.

Oh, I missed that comment. This is Hillary's time? I thought her campaign had placed a limit of only stealing one Obama phrase a day. In Virginia, Bill was talking earlier about how Hillary's campaign is a movement.

Paul: Last time I checked with the Library of congress Obama didn't own the copyright on words such as Change, Hope, Movement and Time...lol
I am pretty sure anyone can use those same words in any way they choose.
Obama stole his original "Yes, We can" phase from Caesar Chavez, so I think it is allowed.

Let's see how the next month plays out. Polls show Mrs. Clinton Ahead in Ohio, Pa, Texas, and Wisconsin. If she runs those states and Mr. Obama stays even or wins a few more delegates in the smaller caucuses and states, she will be victorious. If Mr. Obama can win in the big states I mentioned, then he deserves the nomination.

Jordan - I'd say the one that wins the more delegates will get the nomination, regardless of the size state that sends them.

Bigger states obviously send more delegates, but under Democratic Party rules of proportionality, big wins in six small to mid-size states is better than a tight win in a couple big ones.

If Clinton has huge wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas, then sure, she probably grabs the total needed for nomination. Obama needs to 1) gain some momentum through February, which he seems likely to do, and 2) effectively target congressional districts where he can, to keep the bigger states close.

And, hey, wouldn't it be cool if Obama could actually win one of those three states?