Here's the article from HuffingtonPo (I know, I know they don't love Hillary):

"UPDATE: Survey USA has an Ohio poll suggesting a sizable 9-point lead for Barack Obama in a matchup against McCain.

---

Original Post: A series of recent polls suggest Barack Obama has begun to open big leads in some states that will be crucial to the a Democratic win in November. But in at least two swing states, Clinton continues to outperform John McCain while Obama lags behind.

California: Obama Opens Big Lead Over McCain, Clinton's Unfavorability Rises"

Site: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/polls-obama-improving-in_n_103082.html

It links to SUSA. You can check it if you want. It does Obama v. McCain matchups with pretty much every combination of VP you can think of (without Clinton, don't know why they didn't do her, my guess is they're as sick of her supporters crying about how Obama could never win PA let alone OH without her as I am) and any matchup you use Obama has a 8-11 point lead over McCain.

Not going to take the time to read through 267+ posts. Saw you on Hardball with Joe Madison. Thought that pretty much summed it up.

You both have two very different points of view. You were both respectful to each other. I don't know how to say this, respectfully Joan, but everyone who disagrees with you in how they interpreted those comments is not out to necessarily trash you or the Clintons. And they're not all vile people.

I'm one of those who think she owes the Obama family an apology. It's not a make or break for me, I'm not screaming for it, she probably can't afford to do it, but I think she owes them one. Why? Because if "anything can happen in June" who exactly would it be happening to other than Obama for Hillary to get the nomination? Now does that mean I think she wants him dead? Of course not. No more than she was happy Bobby Kennedy died, which is of course not at all. But in the same way they were tasteless comments to the Kennedys, mistaken or not, I felt they were tasteless comments to the Obamas hence an apology is owed.

You don't feel that way, Joan. Great. But other people can feel that way and not just be indulging in Clinton bashing. I saw Ted Sorenson on Charlie Rose the other day. He said he had a great deal of respect for Bill Clinton as a president and communicator, but didn't agree with the Clintons' habit of always triangulating. Sorenson felt Bill had let slip by an historic opportunity to really further the Democratic agenda and move the country forward, to triangulate with the right wing. That's his opinion. Is that Clinton bashing?

My point is you have to understand not everyone in the Democratic Party approved of the Clintons past or present. And that doesn't make them vile. Or bad Democrats. It just means they differ in opinion from yours and some other Democrats. Big deal.

Sorry but you're not. Period. It's not about you.

It's about ending an unjust war in Iraq, fixing our economy, ending the disasterous Bush tax policy McBush wants to continue, weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, switching to alternative fuels, saving the environment, improving healthcare and protecting a woman's right to choose.

Those are all core fundamental Democratic values. If you can't vote for them you're not a Democrat.

What all of this so-called vitriol shows you is a lot of Democrats weren't as enamored of Bill Clinton as some of you were. But they went ahead and voted for him. Twice. Because they're Democrats.

If you can't do the same for another Democrat, Barack Obama, given the disasterous Bush years we've lived through you're not a Democrat. Period.

Life's unfair. Sorry but that's just the way it is. John F. Kennedy once famously said that after he failed to nab the Democratic nomination for Vice President in 1956. But he didn't whine. He didn't stir up the whole party against him. He moved on, despite living in almost continuous pain, picked himself up and behaved like a grwon-up. Elizabeth Edwards likewise didn't whine about how unfair it was she got cancer. She picked herself up, found more causes and moved forward. She's more respected than ever now. We can't all get what we want. Hillary Clinton thought she would win the presidency hands down. Barack Obama was the underdog.

You have 2 choices: 1) vote for Obama or 2) be responsible for more death in Iraq, the continuing battering of the environment we all have to live in and the oncoming recession which under another Republican administration will look more like another Great Depression. Choose.

And she could still take it. Who knows? The Rules and Bylaws Committee meets on Friday. If they gave her absolutely everything she wants there would still be a chance.

Again not saying Hillary Clinton hasn't been the victim of atrocious sexism. And I'm not saying Joan Walsh doesn't have a valid viewpoint.

What I am saying is so does Joe Martin. And that people have the right to disagree with Joan without being a virulent anti-Clinton haters or sexist. In the same way people have the right to disagree with Joe Martin without being virulent anti-Obama haters or racist.

The rhetoric has gotten out of control on both sides. I just don't think that's a reason not to vote for one candidate or the other. Because of what other people SAID.

Now with regards to racism and sexism they have been terrible. But again I don't see why that's a reason to vote against the Democrat. If Hillary Clinton won I would vote for her. At some point there has to be SOME way to come back together. The issues are just too important.

Maybe the Party can agree to have some kind of dialogue, acknowledge the issues and try to move forward.