saying that over 50% would not vote for HRC. The reason? 22% of Democrats in that poll would not. It just proved my theory that the very same Dems saying "she's unelectable" are THEMSELVES making it into a reality. Unbelievable.

...is that like a "fifth column" or what?

Democrats need to learn one thing from Republicans.  Though we've been the party to use the term "yellow dog", Republicans are more likely to vote in every election, and stick with their party.  So many Democrats will completely dismiss a candidate over one issue and jump ship and vote for candidates like Nader. 

The only way we continue our progress is to stick together.  I'm not sure which candidate I'm voting for in the primary but I know that candidate is going to be a Democrat.  I support the principles laid out by the Democratic party, so I'm not excluding any Democrat and I'll be voting for our choice in 2008---even if they're not my first pick.  We must stick together.  If Hillary is the candidate--then so be it.  I think we've all seen the disastrous results of a two-term Republican President.

Out of all candidates, John Edwards has the highest combined score of people (a) Definitely would and (b) would consider.  He scored a combined 63% in this answer.

In other words, John Edwards appears to be the most electable candidate in this poll.  That's the real story.

Exactly the conclusion I reached.  Also note, the person next in line in the "definitely would-would consider" category is Obama with a 60.  Clinton scores 53.  Giuliani gets the highest GOP score with 57, McCain receives 51 and Romney comes in at a measly 39.

Like Nick, I'll vote for whomever we nominate.  And like Lowell and Chris, I recognize that folks are buying into GOP "talking points".  But, what this and other "head to head" polls (if you dare call this a "head-head poll") show is both Edwards and Obama are more formidable in a general election than HRC.

In the world beyond the blogs, presidential elections are big "popularity contests".  Rightly or wrongly, HRC has built up a lot of negatives while JE and BO score 10% less in negatives.  I submit that makes either of them more formidable in a general than HRC.  We should win this thing in 08, but why make it any more difficult than necessary.  Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards sound like winning tickets to this "W-loather". 

When Lyndon Johnson ,who  was president presiding over the Vietnam War, Sen. Robert Kennedy could use him as a punching bag. Johnson was very unpopular, Kennedy was running for president. Then Johnson decided to call Kennedy's bluff and say he wouldn't run for another term. Kennedy then had to articulate how he was going to govern if he became President. This was also to contrast him with Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey, who were also running for president.  Kennedy was later klled and well you know the rest.  Now we come to Sen. Clinton, Clinton's big catch before the March 31st fund report deadline was she can attract the big donors over her opponents. From 2004- onward, that was the gig, corner the market on donors. Like John McCain, her frontrunner counterpart before the fundraising primary was over, she ruled. Now though, with Obama's netroots contributions larger than hers and her donor base flocking to Obama and then with people like John Edwards, here "aura of invincibility" is over.What is now her basis for running? Why are you Lowell, who just worked hard to make an anti-Iraq candidate Senator and defeat pro-Iraq Allen, now pushing to make a Senator who is still pro-Iraq, has no intention of bringing home our troops, president?