I do have concerns about teh corruption issue -- don't want the Democrats to repeat the losses of 1994. HOwever, it seems like the diarist isn't understanding this poll, including the questions being asked. Most glaring example:

Regardless of who you may support, who do you think is the most honest and trustworthy -  (Clinton), (Obama) or (Edwards)?

The diarist notes the results:

Clinton: 35%  
Obama: 26%    
Edwards: 22%  
All: 2%      
Any 2: 1%      
None: 8%    
No Opinion: 5%

According to the diarist, these are "weak" results, "especially" the 8% who answered "none".

The results are relatively evenly divided, but it's silly to suggest these are

"weak numbers across the board."

It doesn't mean that only 35% trust Clinton, or only 22% trust Edwards. It merely asks among them, which is the most trustworthy? The result is clearly most likely tied to candidate preference. It can't be over 50% for all of them, since the sum total can only be 100%. Numbers above one-third for any of the three candidate would be pretty good news for the one candidate, but the lower numbers don't refelct bad impressions of the other two candidates.

Moreover, any poll that finds only 8% saying they don't trust any of the whatever slate of candidates is a phenomenal result. 90% willing to say all or one of the three is most honest -- that's very impressive, considering the cynicism towards politicians in the modern age.