A long time ago, I blogged about the Dems tearing each other apart during a couple debates and in the media, and hypothesized that it would have detrimental effects on their ability to pull together this fall. Now my hunch is being confirmed not just by anecdote but through new polling evidence from Franklin & Marshall:

If [FILL preferred candidate] does not win the Democratic nomination, who do
you think you will vote for in the November election? Will you vote for [fill other
candidate], John McCain, some other candidate, or will you probably not vote in the
November election?

Hillary Clinton supporters (n = 228)
53% Barack Obama
19% John McCain
5% Other
13% Won’t vote
10% Don’t know

Barack Obama supporters (n = 126)
60% Hillary Clinton
20% John McCain
3% Other
3% Won’t vote
14% Don’t know

Yes, that’s right John McCain snares about 20% of Dems no matter who he’s running against. So much for he myth of the “Obamacan” Republicans - let’s talk about the McCainocrats!

But wait! It doesn’t stop there! Drudge has posted some new polls from Rassmussen:

 Thursday, March 20, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows John McCain’s lead growing against both potential Democratic opponents. McCain currently leads Barack Obama 49% to 42% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41% margin (see recent daily results).

Game on!

I want you (whoever you are) to watch both of these videos:

Now, tell me who is prepared to lead our country? Who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief? Who is inspiring?

Barack Obama vs. John McCain is a battle we can and will win - the country will make the right choice come November.

National Review has an awesome quote from one of Obama’s advisors on his unpreparedness: 

 In it, Susan Rice, a foreign policy adviser to Senator Barack Obama, discusses the foreign policy credentials of both Democrats against the tableau of Mrs. Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call advertisement about who would be best prepared for an international crisis. (While your children are safely asleep.)

“Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready,’’ Ms. Rice said. “They’re both not ready to have that 3 a.m. phone call.”

Check out the full article 

Well this whole superdelegate problem is taking an interesting turn.

Apparently, some Ohio superdelegates have banded together to force a plan of specifics from each Democrat to address local economic issues before they endorse either candidates….HAHAHA! I love it!

Yes, that’s right - official Democratic elites are now engaging in institutionalized pandering…something normally just left to each individual Democratic candidate to pursue.

Holding their presidential candidates for ransom is surely the way to bring a clean and quick end to their nomination process. I’m sure none of the other states (some with opposing economic needs from Ohio) will now start forming their own superdelegate militias. Good luck guys!

From the USA Today piece

 WASHINGTON — Both Democratic presidential candidates, who promise to curb the influence of corporate lobbyists inWashington, helped enact narrowly tailored tax breaks sought by major campaign contributors.

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has accepted $54,350 from members of a law firm that in 2006 lobbied him to introduce a tax provision for a Japanese drug company with operations in Illinois, according to public records and interviews. The government estimates the provision, which became law in December 2006, will cost the treasury $800,000.

 As always, democrat’s hypocrisy abounds. 

Obama = 47%

Clinton = 45%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104530/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

Rasmussen Reports – Clinton leads in Rhode Island, Texas race neck-and-neck

Rhode Island

Clinton = 53%

Obama = 38%

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/rhode_island/rhode_island_democratic_presidential_primary

Texas

Clinton = 46%

Obama = 45%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/texas_democratic_presidential_primary

Clinton = 50%

Obama = 45%

http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/02/new-texas-poll-hillary-holds-t.html#comments

During the last Dem debate, I wrote a post about the potential long-term harm their vicious primary might have on the their prospects in coming elections.

Now, it seems that Stuart Rothenberg agrees:

 Could Democrats, who are unified in their dissatisfaction with George W. Bush and have been pleased with their presidential field, really become so divided that they give a surprising opening to the eventual Republican nominee? Yes.

The whole article is very interesting and details how the destructive politics of the Clinton Duo could impose some irreparable damage on the Democratic Party.

So I posted a few days back, while watching the Democratic debate, that I wonder if the Dems will have some lingering hard feelings after all of these vicious attacks. Well, apparently some Dems are worried about the same thing:

A few prominent Democrats, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have spoken to the former president about the force of his Obama critiques. There is some fear within the party that if Obama becomes the nominee, he could emerge personally battered and politically compromised. And there is concern that a Clinton victory could come at a cost — particularly a loss of black voters, who could blame her for Obama’s defeat and stay home in November.

The Washington Post article talks to some other prominent Democrats that are getting a little nervous about the potential repercussions of the thrown-down fight between Clinton and Obama.

“This is harmful to the party, it’s harmful to the state. And I understand they want to win, but this is about — should be about — a competition of ideas, not who can pull the hammer harder,” he said.

Read the whole article here.