> Except that in the national polls right now, Hillary does the same as
> Obama, or better, against McCain. I guess it all turns on your
> definition of "staggeringly different."
The link to Gallup you gave us (if my memory helps) referred to comparisons between Kerry and Bush in 2004.
It wasn't between Kerry and Carol Moseley Braun, or between Kerry and Edwards, or between Kerry and Dean, or between Kerry and Clark, or between Kerry and Kucinich, or between Kerry and Gephardt, or whatever. It wasn't a comparison between Democrats. That's why I don't understand your switching the comparison to Obama vs. Hillary. The apt one is between Obama and McCain.
I mean, I suppose one might anticipate that many Democrats -- elderly, Latinos, or working-class White -- are going to favor McCain. Some certainly will. But, at this point, I expect most of them to come around and support Obama.
In case I wasn't clear: the "staggeringly different" refers to Dems vs. Reps. The media is lagging behind (and that's a big factor), but the evidence so far is that the Dems are in the upswing in terms of affiliation, support, enthusiasm, fundraising -- compared to the Reps.
So, if Hillary were to become the nominee (very unlikely now), she'd enjoyed a similar advantage. So the "staggeringly different" phrase doesn't reflect enamourement with Obama as a person.