> The poll shows across-the-board strength for Clinton. "Despite
> rivals' efforts to portray her as too polarizing to win the general
> election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said
> Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4,
> 2008," the Post's Jon Cohen and Anne Kornblut write. "One of the
> central claims of Obama's campaign is that he is best suited to lower
> partisan tensions in Washington. But, in this poll, more see Clinton
> as best able to reduce partisanship. On major issues, Democrats are
> far more likely to trust her than her main competitors."
=================================
Are angry Democrats really worried about looking too "partisan"? It seems to
me they're more worried about their candidates succumbing to the Republican
attack machine and looking too soft and squishy to the mass of independent
voters.
Clinton looks tougher and more able than Obama or Edwards to beat the Republican nominee. So even those Democrats who see themselves as being to her left and prefer other candidates will support her because they want above all else to win. That's why they grudgingly abandoned Dean and accepted Kerry under DLC pressure in 2004. Big miscalculation by the Democrats; the "war hero" wilted under the Republican assaults.
Whether Clinton will be similarly destroyed remains to be seen. Things are different this time. Iraq and the economy are both more precarious they they were in 2004 and the mood in the country is far more anti-administration - to the point where even a terrorist attack or military strikes on Iran could hurt the Republicans more than it could help them. Long time to go yet, though, in an age when elections are not decided until the final weekend.