Both Obama and Hillary have weaknesses in different areas. Pointing out only Obama's weakness in Appalachia (in the primary, not the GE) does not take into account his ability to draw in new voters and appeal to moderates and conservatives that Hillary drives away.
Even Clinton admits she has baggage, but were talking about votes. IMO, Obama was doing really well prior to Rev. Wright, I even liked him prior to Rev. Wright but it's been down hill since.
No doubt Obama's appeal has somewhat declined since Wrights sermons were aired, but Clinton's image has also suffered with much greater numbers of voters characterizing her as untrustworthy or phony after her Tuzla fabrication and her reversal on the DNC sanctions of FL/MI. It seems to me that Obama still holds an edge over Hillary in terms of electibility notwithstanding the toll that this long campaign has exacted on their respective candidacies. At the very least I can't take seriously claims that Obama's appeal has been so damaged that the party needs to overturn the pledged delegates and hand the election to Hillary because even if she did enjoy some marginal edge over Obama in electibility, the perception of such a backroom coronation would lead to a widespread view that she won the nod illegitimately, effectively wiping out any advantage she may enjoy.
No doubt Obama's appeal has somewhat declined since Wrights sermons were aired, but Clinton's image has also suffered with much greater numbers of voters characterizing her as untrustworthy or phony after her Tuzla fabrication and her reversal on the DNC sanctions of FL/MI.
Perhaps you haven't been reading the latest exit polls:
When asked by the exit poll whether Clinton was honest and trustworthy, 63 percent said yes and 35 percent said no. When asked whether Obama was honest and trustworthy, only 45 percent said yes and 53 percent said no.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp? Page=/Politics/archive/200805/POL2008051 4a.html
You're actually citing Brent Bozell's outfit as a truthful and legitimate source?
I guess so -- it's a CNN poll. I think there was another poll that had similar findings. I could look for it if you'd like.
It's not a CNN poll, it's a CNS poll, big difference. Only one is legit.
No it's not. Check the link inside the link, or if you prefer, check the following:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#WVDEM
Did you read the first part of that sentence that you highlighted? I stated that this long campaign has harmed Obama's image somewhat and only then stated that Hillary's numbers have also tanked because of the election exposure. The poll you site does nothing to contradict that. But if you want to see a poll showing how little Americans trust Clinton then see:
http://people-press.org/reports/display. php3?PageID=1291
"The proportion of Democratic voters describing Clinton as honest fell from 65% to 57%, and the percentage describing her as phony increased from 29% to 35%."
When asked to sum up Hillary in 1 word the 2 words that came in 2nd and 3rd place (after experienced) in terms of being said the most were "liar" and "untrustworthy".
I love the fact that the Pew Research Group link you provide is entitled: "Obama's Image Slips, His Lead Over Clinton Disappears."
You can cherry-pick the data all you want -- the fact of the matter is that it's Obama's image that is declining, even as the media and certain Dem insiders try prematurely to anoint him the winner of the nomination.
I did not say that Obama's image was not damaged. I simply said that Hillary's was damaged more, and if you read the poll (the title notwithstanding) you will see that.
pre Rev. Wright, he still lost Appalachia..see Virginia/Maryland. He's exactly where he was pre-Wright, only a different part of the country is voting.
You'll see in Oregon.
If he's doing so terrible in rural America, why is he winning rural Iowa, Minnesota, Great Plains, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, rural areas of California, Arizona, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire
