The Time poll this am: this is the issue

The new Time poll this am shows that Obama beats McCain 48-41, while McCain and Hiliary tie, 46-46. It makes the point that independents break for McCain when he is matched against Hiliary, but they go for Obama when the match up is Obama v. McCain. This has always been the crux of my argument for supporting Obama. (There are other arguments to be sure, but this is the one that makes the case to me.)

Link:

TPM story

This is not identity politics for me. I am a professional woman (not a "young" college-age student). I am not black. However, my husband is and thus my children are mixed-race, could-not-pass-as-white. So I could identify with both candidates on an emotional level. But that is not how I choose. I think both Hilary and Obama are substantive candidates. Actually, no question that Hiliary would be amazing at maneuvering the levers of government, etc. (Although, I have disagreed with some of her campaign tactics in the past month.) I think Barack is visionary enough to put together a leadership of this country that would also be very effective. So while there are qualititative differences, I think they would both be very good, very effective leaders.

But I also live in a red state. And I know just how much people despise Hilliary. It is rediculous, and somewhat unfounded, but true. Many would line up to vote for WHOMEVER against her. Furthermore, Obama appeals to republicans in my community whom I never suspected would even consider a democrat. The issue is electibility. Hiliary cannot win it against McCain, and if she could, it will be such a divided electorate, that there will be more gridlock than change in the years to come. I also think that down-ticket democrats in some of the purple states could be hurt by her on the top of the ticket. I am a democrat and very motivated to see an end to republican destruction of our country. The Time Poll this am should be the start of loud talking points about why the democrats should nominate Obama to be the democratic candidate.

•  Agreed

  Fair or not, irrational Hillary hatred on the part of some of the electorate that might otherwise vote Democratic is a real issue that we will have to contend with if she's the nominee.

  And I don't think anything will motivate Republicans who are disgruntled w/McCain as their nominee more than the possibility of a second Clinton presidency. Otherwise, I think a lot of those people will just stay home on election day.

  by BillyZoom on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:53:58 AM PDT

•  This has been a consistent trend

  Check this out.

  We nominate Clinton at our peril at this point.  Dems need to know this.

  by RallyPoint on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:02:10 AM PDT

•  Limbaugh/Coulter

  the fact that Limbaugh and Coulter are both in the Clinton camp should tell you all you need to know about who the Dem nominee should be.

  by docstymie on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:08:39 AM PDT

•  Weirdest thing...

  my Republican brother-in-law (voted for Bush twice) really liked Edwards! But he Will Not Vote For Hillary. I think he is going to vote for Barack.

  To my brother-in-law's credit, he did regret his second Bush vote. A bit late to the ball, but better late than never.

  by MaskedKat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:15:00 AM PDT

•  Electability should be the issue . . .

  . . . but if it was, John Edwards would still be in the race.

  And winning it.

  The Disciples may make electability the issue NOW.

  It hasn't been until now.

  by raatzie on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:15:08 AM PDT

  •  Shouldn't be the only issue, but should

    be an issue. Especially now that we know the Republican nominee. Thusfar, Obama's argument has not been about electability. But now, its coming down to the wire, and it might help some undecideds to know he is more electable.

    by BlueGA on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:20:45 AM PDT

    •  Now that Edwards is out of the race. n/t

      by raatzie on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:56:26 AM PDT

•  Lots Of Democrats Won't Vote For Hillary Clinton

  Remember, Clinton has shown us in clear terms that she lacks good judgment.  Her vote FOR the Iraq war authorization without even bothering to read the Iraq NIE was a devastating error in judgment.

  I do not trust Hillary Clinton.  And I will not be voting for her if she's the nominee.

  Obviously, there are millions of Democrats out there who feel the same way.

  by bincbom on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:16:54 AM PDT

•  Lets then get to work for Barrack

  make him the nominee

  by wuod kwatch on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:16:58 AM PDT

•  Time Poll

  The Time Poll confirms the high negatives for Clinton going into a GE cycle. She had similar ratings going into her 2000 NY Senate campaign but was able to work and spend her way out of them in a Democratic state. There is no assurance that she could do the same in the 2008 Presidential contest, but there is  some definite momentum on the Democratic side of the ball.

  I continue to be perplexed that Obama's numbers aren't higher after the very good and widespread media coverage he has enjoyed. No major stumbles or scandals - he should be pushing a double digit lead against the shopworn McCain.

  I think the argument is well made that HRC will arouse more opposition fervor, but BHO is certainly not sweeping everything in his path. Jimmy Carter was blowing out Gerald Ford by almost a 2-1 margin at this stage of the 1976 election cycle and barely hung on to win the GE.It would be interesting to see what the numbers of a generic Democrat are against McCain. I suspect they would be in Obama's current range.

  by Canadianbacon on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:53:00 AM PDT

•  Both

  Frank Schaeffer and George Will agree with you.

  I just read a Huffpo post from a few days ago.  It was written by the son of a pre-eminent evangelical theologian, Francis Schaeffer.  His son, Frank, wrote a book whose title reveals his POV, "CRAZY FOR GOD--How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back."

  At any rate, the title of his Huffpo post is:

  Why This Former Right Winger Likes Obama

  The registered as an independent voter in me -- who still happens to lean Republican some of the time -- wants the two-for-one Clintons to win the Democratic nomination because I know John McCain will beat them in November. The patriot in me hopes Obama wins because in my gut I trust him. I am more inspired by his candidacy than I have ever been by any political event, and if you knew me back "when" you'd know that statement is more or less a miracle.

  [...]

  The right-winger in me knows that Obama can reach across party lines and win a national election. I know it because he touches me in the way no other Democratic candidate does. I know it because the Clintons make my flesh crawl but I can't get enough of Obama, even though on paper the Clintons share many of his policies. It isn't a matter of what I think; it's a matter of what I feel.

  [...]

  Obama touches me. I feel a human connection to him that transcends politics. The Democrats are as lucky to have him running as they are unlucky to have the Clintons still in the picture. If a former right wing zealot like me will even consider voting for Obama, something big is happening.

  I don't think that reactions like that or that of George Will's can be ignored.

  Forewarned, Democrats now are forearmed -- not that they will necessarily make sensible use of the gift. Tuesday's voting armed Democratic voters with the name of the candidate that their nominee will face in the fall. Will their purblind party now nominate the most polarizing person in contemporary politics, knowing that Republicans will nominate the person who tries to compensate for his weakness among conservatives with his strength among independent voters who are crucial to winning the White House?

  Perhaps. The Republican Party's not-so-secret weapon always is the Democratic Party, with its entertaining thirst for living dangerously.

  [...]

  The surest way to unify the Republican Party, however, is for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama, the foundation of whose candidacy is his early opposition to the war in Iraq, would be a more interesting contrast to the candidate who is trying to become the oldest person ever elected to a first presidential term and who almost promises a war with Iran ("There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran").

  I've made the same point before.  My old neighbors in WI will NEVER vote for Hillary.  Doesn't matter how irrational their reasoning (if you can call it that) is.  There is nothing on God's green earth that will change their minds even though they are democratic-leaning independents who typically vote Democratic.  The "independent maverick" John McCain will do just fine for them if Hillary is the other choice.

  by vbdietz on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:21:38 AM PDT