Top Democratic sources (or any other sources) are universally reliable. I still think that Hill likely believes that Obama would not win the general. Call her state of mind a sub - Judisian one, intellectually speaking. I think the numbers put some meat behind the contention. I know, I know, roidubouloi and others are constantly blathering on about two different electorates in the primary and the general but if JJ is right that Obama is being percieved as more liberal now than in January by substantial numbers of voters, he may have a difficult time trying to centrify himself after Labor Day.

In my post above, it should read "are not universally reliable", of course.

My own observation is that Obama is to the RIGHT of HRC, but he's been framed by her by her shot-slinging, gun toting, sniper fire dodging, and by the support she gets from Rove, Kristol, and Fox News. That all makes her seem more conservative, but in fact, she believes utterly in big government providing solutions, while Obama's position is simply making it possible for people to make decisions to better their lives. In reality, refusing the gas tax scam, refusing a healthcare mandate, and a great range of subtle positions (e.g. opt out instead of opt in to retirement plans) are practical but essentially more conservative positions than HRC. But then that's just me...and all those Republicans who've endorsed Obama.

DeFrank's got it right. Hillary's ferocity stems fromt eh exact same reason that Obama decided to jump in the water, even though he doesn't have any real record to speak of: there will never be a better chance for either of them than during this most perfect of all perfect GOP storms.

A pity that we had to settle for these two this year. Ah, well, you go with the nominee you have, not the one you want to have...

I've had the same feeling. As a moderate Republican I feel somehow more comfortable with Obama -- and even McCain -- than I am with Clinton. They all three mouth similar attempts at pandering although neither Obama or McCain is any good at it.

Let guy who BASICALLY won it to ACTUALLY win it. OK?

W. Bush was really right about you guys in the press: you represent no one but yourself (and certainly not the public), you are a special interest group and nothing more.

Teplukhin2you: I've been entertaining the same thought as of  late. Like, can we have Al Gore back?

sleepyavl,

In this case I agree with you.  The press is an interest group most of whose "reporting" is driven by self-interest (all while making strong claims of independence and objectivity of course).

lliberal,

The point is not that Obama does not have problems, including that he has been framed by Hillary the Republican in exactly the way that Republicans from Democrats.  The point is that the results in the primaries are taken for something the do not prove, and the people who mis-use them as evidence have at the least some obligation to explain why they tacitly assume that the members of Obama's larger coalition will support HIllary but the members of Hillary's coalition will not support Obama -- and to demonstrate that Obama's coalition is not large enough to win in November.  Simply intoning that one demographic -- working class whites -- prefers Hillary does not lead to any conclusion.

Noam,

Is it just possible that Hillary has always been a lying, self-serving hypocrite and opportunist who doesn't give a damn about the welfare of the Democratic party?  MIght this not explain her behavior?  Is there any reason to be surprised to discover that she is not actually trying to do what is best for the party?

Roidubouloi-

Good point. The comments of DeFrank are probably the beginning of Clinton fans in trying to reframe her as she transitions from being a candidate, ostensibly in the name of party unity, but mostly to cover up any damage that she may have inflicted upon Obama's campaign as she triangulates how to gain some power after the election.

Rather than saying, "lying, self-serving hypocrite and opportunist...", would it not be more elegant and parsimonious to just use "Baby Boomer"?

I think Barack and his team were prepared for the Clintons to stay and stay. Not quitting is their nature.  All evidence suggests that the Obama strategy was to prepare for a long haul.  Sure, there were moments where they would have preferred to deliver a K.O.but the cash machine kept humming and they had invasion plans for each state up the road. Plus, Barack and Axelrod know from the Illinois campaigns that bad stuff can happen because they saw the "other guys" fall from the top.  Over the past year, TNR has provided a few profiles of each team and everything suggested that Team Obama had a formula to earn each victory while Hillary figured it was hers before anyone voted.  Face it, after Iowa the HRC plan wouldn't work against Obama and it was too late to shift to Plan B (Money and patience)...yep, that was the Obama Plan.

So it doesn't matter if the Clintons yap about not quitting and don't quit.  Obama knew the difference between yapping, not quitting and winning.  It's the same as knowing the difference between planning for a win and expecting to win.

So we shouldn't be surprised to see Clinton bragging about their ability to defeat McCain (except for the messy fact that they didn't earn the right to compete against him). Hillary can make this easier but she's no longer his opponent. He is planning to defeat McCain but Bill and Hillary are so self-possessed they may not realize it until he does.  

Hillary is still in the race, because she truly beleives that she was entitled to the nomination at the outset, even going back to 2000 when she ran for the Senate.  She didn't care who won in 2000, because she was prepareing for 2004 or 2008.

This is why I find her war vote so damning.  The only reason she voted for the use of force resolution was, because she was planning on running for president, and didn't want to be on the wrong side.  I hope she is kicking herself all the way to Obamas inauguration.

If she doesn't win the nomination, I think should care less who wins the Presidency, since it won't be her.

If DeFrank's source is right, Bill and Hillary's belief seems more like a rationalization than a firmly-held conviction: "Oh, it's all right if we paint Obama as an elitist, America-hating, latte-sipping, worker-disdaining, terrorist-appeasing communist; it won't damage him in the general election."  

Hep, I'm a boomer and perfectly willing to use that as short-hand for "lying, self-serving hypocrite and opportunist..." if you think that the reference will be understood.  Someone save the country, get my generation off-stage and into some rocking chairs before it is too late.

It's not really a valid justification for pressing on with their campaign, but I think Bill and Hillary are right.  Nothing that they do can at this point can damage Obama to the point that he loses the general.  Even in the best of times for him (i.e. the last two months), McCain could never break the 45% line in the polls.  From now on, it will be down down down, probably into the high 30s.

Look for a popular vote landslide and about an 80 electoral vote win for Obama.  The economy, the war, and 8 years of Republican ineptitude?  Forget it.  It's over.

lib - I have to think Al Gore and his team would do a better job than BHO of a) getting UHC done and b) managing economic matters.

So, yeah, Gore would be a much better pick right now. But Obama's won it, so we have to rally round the man and hope for the best.

If gas prices stay high, and IF Obama learns how to souljah and avoids making Dukakisian rookie mistakes (hint: keep Michelle away from a mike, and be patriotic, dammit), then sure, it'll be a landslide.

Not sure how big that second "if" is at this point. Hope the rookie's wising up.

dbhuff: i'm right there with you; that has been one of the few "successful" spins anyone has managed to put out. that piece of garbage survey they put out isn't helping at all, but like Obama said the survey is polarized, so someone who consistently comes down left-of-center is going to appear more liberal than someone who comes down left of left on most things, and right of center for certain issues.

tep: you are right, but i'd just like to point out that Obama was my first choice :-), I don't think Al Gore can hold a candle to Obama's understanding of the importance of micro-economics, and Obama's crew is constantly describing him as "scary smart" and "fast learner" (which sounds about right for graduating with honors from Harvard Law).

michael: astute and agreed

roid: LOL

naomi: agreed, but a landslide only if he goes bare-knuckle and represents