Hillary Clinton to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

A friend of mine offered an NRO "endorsement" of Sen. Clinton as evidence that she might be well positioned for the general election:

At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.

But my gut has been telling me all along that if any of the top candidates can manage to lose in Nov. '08, it is Sen. Clinton.  Now, in the process of responding to my friend's email, I have found polling data to back me up--and I'll share it, below the fold...

[None of these poll numbers are brand spanking new, so this diary should not be interpreted as attempting to be "breaking" or anything along those lines.  It's just my argument against making Sen. Clinton* our nominee, plain and simple.]

That NRO argument is pretty interesting.  For someone who is a wonk (issue oriented) rather than a hack (politically oriented), it makes perfect sense as a pragmatic move.  But I'm not sure it buys her much in political capital.  I suppose this kind of centrist positioning (that article is a must-read, btw) could benefit a generic candidate in a general election; but I see it as a drop in the bucket for her.  

Look at these Rasmussen numbers.  Not only are her negatives significantly higher than Edwards' or Obama's, her support among moderates is significantly lower.  (Among conservatives she edges Edwards by one point, interestingly in light of the NRO piece.)  And in the trial heats she does far worse than Edwards against every candidate; and worse than Obama against everyone except Giuliani (wonder what that's about).

Here are more signs of trouble in her poll ratings (scroll down to "Clinton").  Since she started campaigning, her ratings have tanked!  A 25 point Gallup plummet, in fact: from an 18 point net favourable rating in February to a seven point net negative in the most recent survey.  And this appears to be a steady trend line, not a blip.  Right below that, the CBS Poll also shows her unfavourables on a steady (though not as dramatic) climb.

So why have her numbers been going south so fast?  Obviously it's not that she's female--everyone already knew that.  My personal hypothesis is along the lines of statements Mark Shields and Chris Matthews made recently.  Shields said that while other candidates "campaign in poetry", Clinton "campaigns in prose".  And Matthews wondered aloud if Americans "want to hear that voice in their living rooms for four years".  Harsh, maybe--but I think he is right to wonder that.  Frankly, she just does not have a mellifluous speaking voice but rather a grating one, and is charisma-challenged in general.

Meanwhile, for comparison's sake, Edwards' fav/unfav is +21 Gallup, +9 CBS.  Presumably these are the same exact respondants as those giving the thumbs down to Clinton, right?

Obama also has a very positive balance in net fav/unfav--though voters are less familiar with him, and as I recently posted, I think he has more baggage that could damage him as it gets publicised.  But if it starts looking like Edwards no longer has a shot, and Obama is the only realistic challenger to Clinton, I'll switch to supporting him for sure.  Clinton looks like another Dukakis.  I almost compared her to Mondale, but at least Mondale was more or less a sacrificial lamb!  This time we have everything going for us, and to nominate Clinton would be the most idiotic, bumbling move we have perhaps ever made as a party.

*I think, btw, that just the fact that she is pretty universally referred to as "Hillary" (I try not to do so myself, but I'm swimming against a massive tide there) is also damaging to her to some degree.