But Republicans need Hillary to have any shot in Nov.

Also, Hillary's main argument is basically that Obama is not experienced enough and an empty suit. In a setting where policies and substance are front and center, she is always expected to trounce him, according to her own rhethoric. But that is not what happens, he knows his stuff very well. So even if she wins narrowly by points, he makes the case that her accusations regarding "empty suit" are basically false and that takes away a lot of the power behind her candidacy.

I think, at this point, debates help Obama more than they help Clinton. Everybody knows that she knows her stuff, but some people are still surprised that he knows his stuff as well.

The people who followed the debates and were better informed are overwhelmingly breaking for Obama according the article. So I don't get what you posit, based on that article.

Believe it or not - and I do NOT say this derisively - I bet Mark Penn tried to focus group and poll the ever loving HELL out of that remark.

I'd be willing to bet that's a big part of why we saw that tone change on Saturday.   I'll bet -- in the two interceding days -- Penn was able to dig some micro-trend out of the numbers that said the line of attack would sell to some sub-demographic.

60+ females?
partisan democrats?

Sub-slices of each?  

I bet Penn has convinced Clinton she needs to go for broke by just blowing out the margins in some demographic, and forget the rest.

I think having one-on-one debates helps whoever is the Democratic nominee in November. Clinton has to improve on connecting with voters on a personal level and Obama has to convince people he is "presidential" and can discuss policy details when needed.

And I have no argument with Clinton staying in the race until she decides not to. I'd rather have Obama's campaign improve their response to relatively mild attacks from Clinton so if he is the nominee, he's prepared for what will show up in the fall. Notice, they responded to the photo incident much quicker than they did to Michelle's "being proud for the first time" statement.

Yes, but those states don't matter!

As long as Clinton can still walk after February 5, Wolfson and Penn will declare victory.

Probably because they've realized that Texas, and possibly OH, don't really count... So they have to look forward to the only state that actually does, PA.

He definitely will on Sunday. That man has as many issues as Tweety, he just keeps them under wraps a little better.

Perhaps... and I might even agree with it being unfair.

But it's a serious case of being media tone deaf.  One simply cannot do that, in any setting, really.

Hell... I've found in my own personal professional career -- one cannot be friendly and above it all today, then start bellowing tomorrow.   It just doesn't work.   I've seen project managers try to do that -- be the best buddy on Monday, the screamer on Tuesday, the cajoler on Wednesday, etc.   It doesn't matter what we're dealing in - people react negatively to such tactical swings.  

It sort of assumes everyone shares your internal conversation, and most folks just don't -- and shouldn't be expected to -- have such a high level of empathy.

I've never actually seen a debate "play" videos of what a candidate may have said.  I seriously doubt any candidate would agree to appear on a debate unless the rules explicitly forbade playing videos of candidates comments.

We do that here in NM, which at one time had a horrible problem with uninsured drivers.  I'm happy to regularize the status for people who are here anyway, whether you like it or not.  Oh yeah, my premiums went down, too.

We don't hate immigrants here in NM.  We want them to participate in society as fully as possible.

Why?  Because it's an OVERWHELMINGLY poor issue to run on.  In New York State, a Democratic state, the opinion polls were 70 percent OPPOSED to driver's licenses for illegal aliens.  

The Democratic Governor of NY, who she was trying to support on this, was crucified in the press and by the public over this proposal.  And THAT'S what you think is going to get Obama elected?  

Man, the GOP is going to have a field-day with that.  

This is the real problem with the far left of the Democratic party.  Issues like this are a death knell in a general election.  Mind you, I'm not saying there's no merit to the idea on some grounds.  But there's plenty of reasons to be critical of it, too.  Not the least of which is the fact that you are rewarding criminal behavior by bestowing a privilege upon them.  Driving is NOT a right; it is a privilege.  And trying to run on this?  It might help in Texas (aka pandering), but it's not going to fly elsewhere.  But hey, anything to win the primary, right?

Cute! (I spit out my wine reading that BS)

and Hillary supporters just aren't ready to show up in this thread until after she loses in TX and OH.

Look, what do you people want her to do??? She's criticized for EVERYTHING, while Obama gets a free pass for everything.  It's ridiculous.  

His campaign has characterized her very negatively from the start.  "She's part of the old politics", blah blah blah.  Who the hell is he?  It's pathetic.  She can run circles around him in debates and on issues, but it doesn't matter.  He's the rock star.  She's a --gasp-- WOMAN.  That's really what it boils down to.  

It's clear this primary season has shown that Americans are more than willing to vote for an African-American candidate.  What it HASN'T shown, is that America is ready to vote for a female candidate.

That's pretty sad.  If men go negative against other candidates, it's fine.  If a woman does it, it's "hysterical", or "schizophrenic", or "desperate", or some other pejorative.  If she shows some anger, she's "shrill" or "a bitch".  

This is what America has to come to grips with once this election is over.  If Obama wins, hopefully that will open the door for the last barrier to be broken down.  And if you want to challenge my analysis, give me the name of ONE WOMAN who could be elected president TODAY in this country. I'd like to hear it.  Not Oprah.  Not Condi.  Apparently, not Hillary.  Not Barbara Boxer, not Pelosi.  Who?  

I must agree with Zonk here. Partisan democrat who happens to support Obama this time. Voted for Bill Clinton twice, voted for Hillary twice for senate. I also enjoy posting here more than DK (never actually posted there) because when its good its really good. There haven't been too many threads without stupid name calling around here recently. I wrote my own little plea for civility in a diary last week and some of you responded so that's cool.

I totally agree.  Besides Kos is crowded enough even before all the stupid posts of people correcting eachother's grammar.

I like theleftcoaster.com too but they are way pro-Hillary to the point it boarders on ridiculous.

Survey USA also hinted that they had numbers for early voting. I would be very curious to see those as a teaser for next Tues.

I was surprised. In my last poll, I asked about general election matchups before asking about the primary. Of the half that were given a GE matchup that included Obama, 15% of his primary voters would vote against him in the general.

OTOH, there were many more former Bush voters that said they would stick with him in the general than there were Dems-for-a-day. Not enough to put Texas in play, but an impressive number.

Clinton had much smaller numbers in her similar situations, mostly female.

Revising my model to put these temporary Democrats on top of the Dem + crossover model, rather than as a part of the Dem + crossover model pretty much eliminates her 5 point lead, and small samples I've taken since then makes me expect he has taken the lead.