As I wrote in a number of early posts here by Hillary loyalists pumping Obama's "bitter" comment:

We'll see how it plays out. But I'm wondering if Hillary's fierce and repeated denunciations play into negative perceptions of her already held by many voters.

As the diaries here pumping this story continued to fill the recommended list, I wrote:

As I noted in one of alegre's numerous posts

... on this subject, regardless of what one thinks of what Obama said, Hillary and her surrogates, particularly a hack like Vilsack who is counting desperately on a Hillary win so he can be the next Secretary of Education (or, who knows, maybe even VP pick), are at risk of overplaying their hand on this.

Hillary has high negatives for a reason. If voters don't think this as serious as Hillary and company continue to claim it is, this may come back to bite her.

We'll see. Judging by the Sunday morning shows and today's PA newspaper endorsements, Clinton and her pals may be in danger of simply looking desperate.

by Bob Johnson on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:10:22 PM CST

I added in that same comment string:

As I noted, the next few days will tell...

I have no control over what anyone says. It appears Hillary thinks she's onto something big. I am not convinced, judging by reactions in PA.

"Mountain" and "molehill" come to mind. Maybe this will really be Obama's undoing. Who knows?

Still, I think Hillary runs the risk of:

1. Appearing desperate, and
 2. Playing into her negatives.

by Bob Johnson on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM CST

A look at the Rasmussen rolling favorable/unfavorable numbers show that Clinton's unfavorable number has dipped below 50% only eight days since February 11. And, in fact, her unfavorables have gone from 51% on April 13, the day Obama's comments broke, to 56% today.

Couple that with all of the latest Pennsylvania polls showing little or no movement among the electorate (and, yes, Clinton is headed for a win with only the margin to be determined), and Obama's continued strength in the Gallup, Rasmussen, Reuters and ABC/WaPo national Dem nomination polls, and the conclusion is that Hillary going on the attack drives up her unfavorables.

The boomerang effect that is unique to Clinton because of her history appears to be in full effect.

Out of the three news stories that have dominated the primary campaign over the last several weeks -- Wright, Tuzla and "bitter" -- it appears that Tuzla has had the biggest impact on the electorate. Today's ABC/Washington Post poll includes this paragraph:

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

The Tuzla fable played to Hillary's biggest weakness among voters: the belief that she is not honest/can't be trusted.

I know Clinton backers will tell me that Michelle Obama's comments, the Wright story and "bitter" will doom Obama in the general, but that is a hypothetical. He may be doomed, he may not be doomed. But he has shown an ability to respond to these crises which inevitably arise in a campaign.

What is a fact are Clinton's rock-solid negatives. And, yes, they can go up. Because voters have preconceived notions about her and every time she attacks or gets caught in even the mildest inaccuracy, all of these doubts about her bubble to the surface again.

Now, I think McCain is an eminently beatable candidate. Regardless of what polls show today, McCain has yet to be tested. (We've been too busy in the primary.) Frankly, he is a lousy candidate and a lousy campaigner in a very, very bad year for Republicans. The economy is not going to be improving before the general. We know Iraq will be the same, or, more likely, worse. McCain is the second coming of Bob Dole and he will meet the same fate as Dole, regardless of who the Democrats nominate.

But Clinton is hamstrung by her past. Would Hillary beat McCain? Of course! Even with her high negatives. But for her campaign to be making the argument that Obama is unelectable is laughable in light of her own problems. And arguing that Obama is not electable doesn't, conversely, mean that she's more electable.

The flip side every superdelegate should be asking her/himself when Camp Clinton makes this argument in private conversations is, "But what are Hillary's chances versus Obama's?"

Given the last six weeks, I'd say Obama's chances are better than Clinton's. And both of their chances of becoming president are better than McCain's.