I repeat, 0 %.

Even if she does get nominated, she energize the right like no other. I can't believe how many people on Salon can't see something so basic. Her lying and manipulative ways, in order to win the nomination, will piss off many Democrats, who may not turn out for her in large numbers, many Obamaniacs especially.

I saw the Slate.com articles stating that Democrats prefer Hillary. I'm not so sure...what is the definition of a Democrat, someone who has voted as a Democrat for years? I would believe that older voters prefer Hillary, but not lefties, or younger voters. I think that this is where the numbers come from. Also, as the article pointed out, caucus data is very hard to interpret.

Hillary would need many more voters that just Democrats to win and she would convince absolutely nobody from now to November. Everyone has made up his/her mind about her; there's little to learn that is new about her.

Her real problems are 1) trying to seat MI and FL delegates (the lying and cheating Hillary); 2) Her Iraq war vote (please, she didn't think that Bush would actually INVADE); 3) NAFTA 4) her increasing bitchiness on the campaign.

Let's face it, Hillary has beaucoup baggage. She's tired, last century, stale, and offers nothing new. The Clinton years sucked: they sucked for working people, period, and in this regard, were little better than the Republicans, whose collective ass they kissed too much.

You obviously weren't living in Ohio in the 1990's. The Clintons, as Dems, campaigned on a lot of promises, only to deliver too little.

The centrist Dems, like their Republican cousins, deserve a good old-fashioned ass-whipping with the result to be voted into oblivion. It cannot be too soon.

With union membership at an all-time low, and class consciousness pretty much near comatose, I'm not at all surprised that grandpa union dudes would slobber all over Hillary. As Malcolm X famously said "The only way they can get you to vote for a fox is to show you a wolf." My own father, whom I love dearly, fits this voter demographic; the poor old fart can't find Iraq on a map.

You've been drinking too much of your own Kool-Aid. The idea that Obama would lose to McCanine the traditionally "Blue States" is absolutely ludicrous.

This is the issue that has me really pissed off. The huge Hillary supporters on these boards have not addressed this issue.

It's my understanding that all the Democratic candidates signed an agreement to not campaign in MI and FL. This implies that they all agreed with the DNC decision to strip these states of their delegates, but the states held their primaries anyway. Hillary won both. Now she wants them seated, and her campaign has admitted it will fight tooth and nail to get her way.

Joan Walsh, who is a big Hillary fan (even though she denies it, it's obvious, please don't insult our intelligence, Joan) has never taken on this issue. For Hillary supporters, I don't understand how they can defend Hillary's insistence to seat these delegates from a non-election, a bogus election, etc. (whatever you call it). How can we as a party stand for "democracy" when crap like this happens? How can Hillary, as president, if she wins, stand in the White House and denounce other countries' electoral processes when she herself would be illegitimate? I just don't get it. Sign an agreement, and then when the outcome looks favorable, change the rules to please yourself and oh, never admit a mistake. Haven't we had 8 years of crap like this? Playing dirty. Please, a Hillary supporter, explain this to me.

I'm one of the people who preferred Kucinich, as neither Hillary's nor Barack's plan cuts out the evil health merchants who are choking our health care system. However, Hillary has almost no chance of beating McCanine. The simple truth is that the media and most of the big-wig money people are white, heterosexual males, who prefer a black dude over a chick any day. Hillary would get pilloried. I'm with Barack for now, for the moment, even though I've gone back and forth, as I do recognize his many short-comings.

Most voters won't even notice this article. Bush was so extremely sleazy when he ran in 2000, it didn't matter. Most Americans don't read anyway. The article was actually kind of favorable to Obama...a "cut above." I don't think it shows any "smoking gun." Hillary has WAY more baggage than Obama, simply because she has been in the game longer.

that Republicans are voting for Obama in droves, presumably because she is so hated by the Right Wing. I never believed this baloney. I always thought that the Right would love to run against Hillary, because they think she would lose (which I still maintain she would do if she wins the nomination). Even though Hillary would be vastly superior to McCanine, one should never "mis"-underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of the American people.

Then comes along Limbaugh today, urging his minions to vote for Clinton, because he relishes a lengthy fight on the Democratic side and because it's "fun" to watch. He says outright that he feels a fight between Clinton and Obama hurts the party in general and therefore make it easier for the Republicans in November. I feel partially smug in this respect, because it just makes sense to me, that Hillary-haters should vote FOR her not against her in order to set her up for failure. I've read that privately the Republicans would rather run against Hillary than Obama.

Didn't DailyKos urge the same strategy for Romney in order to weaken the Republicans?? That Democrats should cross over and vote for Romney??