There's a lot of interesting commentary here including...

Eerie replay
Jim Pinkerton, who worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said Democrats "are making an eerie replay of 1972," when nominee George McGovern lost in a landslide to Republican Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War.
"They're convincing themselves that the youth vote will carry them, like McGovern was convinced the Baby Boomers and the 18-year-old vote were going to elect him," Pinkerton said. "Well, there were a lot more Lynyrd Skynyrd fans than James Taylor fans out there, and McGovern got clobbered, including by young people."

Clinton is exposing Obama's weaknesses?  Exit polling from every single primary thus far (except WI) show his weaknesses. Let him talk long enough and Obama shows his weaknesses.

I am positive that Obama would then have gone on to a challenge-free GE election.

Hillary is winning the most important argument right now - the electability argument.  

as I point out in my analysis of nine recent SUSA state "November matchup" polls, Obama is tanking against McCain in states that Democrats could/should win, while Clinton is holding her own..

(blogwhoring alert -- hey, how about a link to that BTD! ;-)  )

Now I want the fanboys to tell me how "mean" and vicious Hillary was.  

The Dems have won 3 out of the last 8. And Repubs and Clinton have won the 7 out of 8.

Who do you think needs lessons in how to win the WH?

The Dems have GE & Primary loosers leading the way. (Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, etc) No wonder they are so aggresive against the Clinton name!! How dare a Clinton actually win a GE when so many have failed!

Well, it turns out the theory does not work that way.  The Wright videos unraveled the story of the uniter as did the bitter comments.  The attacks on the Clinton's made voters doubt hid Democratic credentials.  His comments about the her voters being in the bag for him.  The change narrative did not work and will not work.  Voters want real clear change from the Republican agenda.  They want the Democratic agenda,  They don't want abstract change.   We were told he transcended race, yet his campaign accuses everyone of racism.  

Things started to fall apart.  They needed a quick win and did not get it.  When you run on an artificial construct, it falls apart.  Hillary has a history and a track record.  Obama campaign is the best vaporware campaign.  

And your point only underscores the fact that Obama is going to be a sacrificial lamb come November a la Dukakis. And that's a good part of the reason many support Clinton over Obama. She will win. Obama might win but when you're tied in Massachusetts and trailing in New Jersey, it is hard to conceive of your chances have any basis in reality.

I'm sure the comments are priceless.

This was the same claptrap they pulled out of their butts when HRC "endorsed" John McCain. As if McCain needed HRC's help to use Obama's lack of experience against him!

Really, look at what Whitten says...he mentions unity, the middle-class, and small towns...

SUSA only has him up by 9 and that was before Hillary's PA victory, the new Ad buy she can now afford or whatever Town Hall Events she does in the State pre-Primary.  So, her numbers could easily change.  Not enough to win, perhaps, but enough to take advantage of those new doubts about Obama voters might be having.  

The advantage in the "electability" argument that Obama held six weeks ago has vanished. Six weeks ago, Obama was doing significantly better than Clinton in these nine key states, now Clinton is doing better than Obama.

The nine states are: CA, IA, OR, MA, MN, NM, MO, OH, WI.

As he notes:

While these 9 states are not representative of all 50 states (no Mountain/Plains or Southern states), they do represent the states that Democrats have to win in order to take the White House.

Look at this lumbering behemoth:

In that scenario, the fact that Clinton remained in the race might make her a likelier nominee than Gore, but it militates towards a campaign that raises her positives and retains her acceptability to the majority of the party.

"militates toward a campaign that raises"

Obama's campaign is really about HIM, its narcissistic.  Clinton's campaign is about the voters themselves.   And that is why he's not getting through to these voters."

Likein BTD's earlier thread, his breakdown is dead-on for primaries...but for GE...??

The one thing that does give me GREAT pause is Kyl-Lieberman because I think that vote shows incredibly poor judgment -- especially after falling for this administration's lies on the AUMF. But it's not like I would ever vote for McCain, I'd just be less enthusiastic about the Dem race if she were the nominee.  

I read this blog to keep from getting too stuck in the echo chamber, but it seems to me that more and more, many here are falling prey to the same extremism that they rightly criticize in Obama supporters.

I'm not a concern troll, but bash away if you'd like. I doubt I'll change any minds, but the stereotype you have (and constantly reinforce) of Obama supporters, like all stereotypes, has some truth but leaves a lot out. I have many friends and family who support Obama and we're neither young nor naive.

Many here seem to style themselves as the mature seasoned voters who -- in stark contrast to the naive, brainwashed Obama cultists -- understand reality and look at things as they really are (except of course delegate counts). But you are becoming just as blind.

Using some Obama supporters' passion and the blind spots that develop as a result to justify your own viciousness and wholehearted embrace of Republican caricatures of Democrats is a sad sad thing.

Read the post below and tell me this isn't a despicable thing coming from a Democrat.

"It brought into the open what people had suspected about Obama, namely, that he is an affluent, over-educated, well-connected elitist who considers himself above addressing the needs of working people and the elderly.

His followers love him because they share that disdain for anyone who isn't Teh Kewl. That explains the core hypocrisy of the Obama campaign, i.e., 'unity' and kumbaya contrasted by the utter viciousness of his actual voters."

It engages the exact Republican frame that we have been beat over the head with year after year ("over-educated, well-connected elitist" -- wait you left out effete, and since when is education something to be denigrated, oh and Hillary could never be described this way, could she?), it shows utter contempt and even hatred for Obama voters while calling us contemptuous and vicious - neat trick ("His followers love him because they share that disdain for anyone who isn't Teh Kewl. That explains the core hypocrisy of the Obama campaign, i.e., 'unity' and kumbaya contrasted by the utter viciousness of his actual voters"), and on top of that it's just flat out ridiculous ("considers himself above addressing the needs of working people and the elderly").

Well done. Mature, reasonable, impeccably logical - no overwrought cult-based emotion to see here, just reason and electability and high fives for a job well done by Jim J.

He was reading a quote by Axelrod... Axelrod says that the Republicans get the white working class vote? WTF

So far, Obama is a new map, Emanuel says the vote is in the suburbs this year and Axelrod says they don't need the white working class vote.  What?!

An article by Michael Graham published yesterday in the Boston Herald notes that "while Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46 percent, well within the margin of error."

Some key quotes:

Barack Obama, meet John Adams.

Adams noted during the Boston Massacre trial that "Facts are stubborn things." And it appears that, for the moment, the facts have caught up with Obama here in Massachusetts.

How else to explain the amazing, astounding and unthinkable results of the latest SurveyUSA presidential poll: Republican John McCain is tied with Barack Obama in the Bay State.

The last Republican to win Massachusetts? Ronald Reagan. The last Republican before that? Dwight Eisenhower. Even George McGovern managed to carry Massachusetts in 1972, the one Democratic holdout in Richard Nixon's 49-state landslide.

...

Typical Americans want to know if Obama, a liberal community activist with little political or executive experience, is tough enough to face our enemies in a troubled world. Massachusetts Democrats could not care less - they just want to make sure he's tough enough to take on McCain.

And because the answer is "probably not," Obama is struggling among what should be his most ardent admirers. Massachusetts liberals like him as a guy, and they certainly support his politics. But they really hate losers. Especially after the last eight years.

And BTW, the Penn race also showed Hillary's strength -- core Democrats, Reagan Democrats, people who tend to go out and vote, etc.