Especially after some media sources backed off an ARG poll that showed Obama surges which weren't being detected in any other poll.

I agree with you: I don't feel like a New Age is dawning for America or that we're going to emerge from eight years of Bush/Cheney with some sort of new American Renaissance.  But her organization is flawlessly running a national election while Obama and Edwards seem to be focused on New Hampshire and Iowa (respectively).

But there are some problematic figures to emerge from this particular sample.  Hillary's favorable/unfavorable rating is just about at a 1:1 parity, and her unfavorable has climbed slightly over the past couple of years.  There aren't a lot of signs yet for us to make it think that it's actually falling.  By contrast, Obama and Edwards have favorables about as high as Hillary's, but their unfavorables are a lot lower.

What that tells me is that there are probably a lot of Clinton supporters out there who don't have anything bad to say about Obama, but I suspect there are a lot of Obama supporters out there who HATE Hillary.  Obama connects to a segment of idealists with his idea of the politics of hope, but truth be told, it's really starting to look like the people flocking to him don't give a damn what he's saying.  They hate Clinton and think he's the best alternative.

When your supporters aren't actually connecting with you because of who you are or what your message is, you're not actually leading your campaign.  You just happen to be walking in the same direction as everyone else in the mob.  I don't think that either Obama or his organization is in the position to grow a movement that they actually didn't start.

in the upcoming presidential campaign--- not Iraq, not loss of civil liberties, not terrorism, not the economy, just Hillary--- at least, according to Mitch O'Connell, Senate minority leader. So it looks as though the Republicans have already decided who the Democratic candidate will be. Hugh Hewitt has been saying for 2 years the Dem slate will be Clinton-Obama, and that slate will be the reason the Republicans will win.

The Republican voters are realizing they have no viable options running in their own party so they are going with the most conservative of the "Democrats" out there: Hillary.

after the Republican spin machine has so demonized Hillary--- and Bill (who would be 1st gentleman). I have heard Republican-leaning independents say they "could never" vote for Hillary; when asked for a reason, they'll mumble "there's just something I don't like about her" or "All that Whitewater corruption" and so on.

Still anything can happen, but I've not seen an as considered and smart campaign in long time.  Hillary seems to be in control.  I think Obama has made a couple of relatively small mistakes, (Pakistan and whatever the other one was)that showed his lack of finesse.  It's not like he made big mistakes and he's been a terrific candidate, but Hillary has been flawless.  She knows her policy and she obviously knows what a president is supposed to do and how a president is supposed to act.  That glass ceiling is about a thousand miles behind her and it's as if she's over woman thing, over the liberal thing and just out there looking very unbeatable.

As for Edwards?  I really like Edwards.  He's been out front on poor people and rural issues.  He's the guy who's really speaking to many of my issues, but Hillary is right on point, talking smart, having the answers.  Even when the lobbyist question was raised, it appeared as if she was about to jump in a hole and all of a sudden she's was in the briar patch, and Obama and Edward sorta sounded shrill, (at least to me). 

I'm beginning to believe the Republicans, though claiming Hillary is their first choice, are terrified at this woman who can energize not only women voters and black voters but damn near anyone else who is not locked in solid for the other guys.  If this poll is worth a damn, it tells me Hillary is picking up the undecideds early. 

Of course things can change.  I have no idea what's going to happen in the early primaries, but if Hillary can keep on rolling like she is, I think everyone else is playing for second. 

I know this sounds like I'm in Hillary's pocket, but I'm still undecided.  There a lot of talk about a Clinton/Obama ticket, but I would suggest a Clinton/Webb ticket would be even better.  Like it or not, we're gonna be in Iraq for a while longer.  I'd like to see Webb out there, pushing the issues he's been trying to get done in the senate.  I think he would certainly be a stalwart VP and best of all, I'd go to sleep at night knowing the ship of state was in good hands no matter who was steering.

It was interesting to see Romney focus on Obama in the last few weeks as a target, almost dismissing the fact that Hillary is leading in the points. I wondered why his team would go after Obama and thought maybe they were looking down the road in case he is on the ticket as a running mate, but then I wondered if it was not simply a tactic to hit Obama as a means of getting himself out there with some press and saving the war chest of attacks against Hillary for later if he gets that far. For the life of me I just do not get these polls, most of the people I have talked to will not vote for Hillary. People just seem to have issue with the fact that she has failed to rise above her marriage. I would have prefered Bill stay away. Its not that there's is anything wrong with Bill its just that most people do not feel you should be advanced in life by who your parents were or who you are married to. One should be earning the respect of office on their own merits and their own visions. I just have not seen that from Hillary Clinton. Many do not believe she would have won her Senate seat had she not been the former first lady. That said, the next step is to look at her record while in the Senate, and though Obama gets pegged as less experienced by the media maybe they should be saying less-Washingtonian because with all the influence she should be bringing to bear on our Senate she has very little to offer by way of legislative substance. I knew back when she was elected that her running in 08 was a huge possibility and sought to give her the benefit of the doubt, but her results as a legislator have led me to the determination that she has would not earn my vote in a primary. In the general? She would have to pick one hell of a running mate.

You said "One should be earning the respect of office on their own merits and their own visions."  I've been saying this anytime I'm asked what I think of Hillary. 

President Howard Dean proved that running ahead in the early polls is the key to the White House.

I agree with your PS, but stand strong, buddy.  I am keeping the faith.

As more people learn who is running for pres they go with who they know.

PRIMARY POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS NOW> GEN election polls less so.

I would have agreed with you a few months ago, but by this point, name ID is pretty high and people say they're following this closely.  On the other hand, back in 2003, Howard Dean was leading at this point, with Wes Clark about to surge ahead.  So who knows!

Who really does know. The polls now are largely about name id. And when November rolls around and the real negative stuff about her and Bill starts rolling down, people will start to remember the hell that Dems had to go through at the expense of her husbands libido. (I know the coverage was unfair, but he did cheat on his wife). They will start to look at the absolute hatred that independents and of course the GOP has for her and they will begin to shift in enough numbers to significantly dent her lead she has now. I hope they go to Edwards of course, but they could just as easily go to Obama.

As you say, people are starting to pay attention. And there are enough Dem leading independents who want to win and don't want to risk having A. the most reviled woman in American history as their nominee or B.Another round of hatred spilled out onto the airwaves against a Dem candidate or better yet C. the prospect of losing both the House and Senate because they nominated Hillary and she turned out every hate filled republican hiding in the cracks.

But I digress...WHO KNOWS is the best position to take.

Willie, if the polls were only measuring name ID, that wouldn't explain why Hillary has gained so much.  She is already one of the best-known people in America -- there's no reason for her name recognition to increase.

I also disagree with the thesis that Hillary is unelectable.  Whoever the Dems nominate will be demonized relentlessly.  I was frankly stunned when poor, hapless John Kerry was transformed by Repub propaganda into such a monster that even moderate Republicans were whipped into a frenzy against him.  I had three Kerry signs stolen off my lawn that year, and I live in a pretty tame neighborhood.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards -- it doesn't matter.  If it's Obama, they'll continue to call him "Osama" and make up crap about him being raised by Muslim fanatics or whatever.  If it's Edwards, they'll say he's some phony populist with $400 haircuts.  If the Dems nominated a ticket of Gandhi and Mother Teresa, Repub propaganda would probably paint them as a gangster and a hooker -- and make the gullible GOP masses believe it.

That's what you have to expect, and the only solution is to nominate a street fighter who will give back to the Republicans twice the guff they give us.  And that frankly is the other reason why Hillary is doing so well -- because she has a reputation for being a tough politician and that's what you need to go up against this kind of enemy.

Al Gore has not anounced he is running. With such a lead by the front runner, he will never get in. (Should never say never, BUT). Al Gore is no fool.

Hillary must be picking up the unde-sided,plus taking from the 3rd tier candidates.

In the debates all of her answers have been strong. She is the only one who appears Presidential. So many of the candidates have weak answers along with their strong answers. I think they all agree with Biden on a 3 state/province Iraq, but are afraid to open there mouths this early. After all we are one country with 50 states, so what is wrong with Bidens ideal?

Republicans believe in King George, so they will never go along with a divide politics.

As far as Bill still being around, I ask. "What woman will follow any man when she is in charge"?

that there are a lot of Hillary supporters out there who have nothing bad to say about Obama, but there are a lot of Obama supporters out there who hate Hillary.

I like the guy and I've been leaning towards voting for him, but he's done.  He got into this race talking about one thing while everyone who flocked to him was talking about something else.  There is a complete and total disconnect between Barack Obama, his campaign organization, and his supporters, and in those circumstances there is no realistic way that we can expect him to be able to grow that support when it's not actually organic to him in the first place. 

I mean, the guy is out there in two separate debates, and on the one hand he's saying that Clinton's vote to authorize the war was naive, and on the other he's saying that he would invade Pakistan if he was president to attack Al Qaeda there.  You're not going to find a whole lot of people who would agree with both those sentiments simultaneously on their face, unless those people were united by the common sentiment of "at least he's not that uppity bitch Hillary."

Which means that at the end of the day, all he has to run on is "at least I'm not that uppity bitch Hillary," and he's simply not that guy.  It looks like he's done.

Obama's whole point, which he has stated over and over, is that Iraq had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, and starting a war there was a wasteful and pointless diversion from the real issue, which is tracking down and breaking up Al Qaeda.  I think more people "agree with both those sentiments simultaneously" than you give credit for.

Clinton has tried to have it all ways on this issue.  She badmouths Bush on Iraq, talks in tough generalities about chasing Al Qaeda (while calling Obama "naive" for being specific), and yet insists that she did nothing wrong in voting for the Iraq war.  (Her justification for this sounds suspiciously like George Romney's famous "I was brainwashed".  Republicans of 1968 saw that for what it was, and dumped him like a hot rock.)