Agreed.
Hillary has 100% name recognition and a 50% negative rating. Her negatives aren't going to go down during the campaign (unless her negatives go higher), so as long as McCain can get a decent turnout he'll win in a walk.
Not to mention that Hillary adopted the same boneheaded strategy that forced Giuliani to bow out in disgrace - concentrate on winning a few key states (in her case, the early ones) without bothering to build a solid cross-country organization. That's why she's struggling now; she was counting on being able to coast on momentum that she never got.
Obama, on the other hand, is a scary candidate. He's getting better in the debates every single time, and has become a much better candidate. He's got a strong organization in every state across the nation, is raising money hand over fist and (as much as we hate to admit it) he's borrowed the most successful page from Reagan's book, forcing us to run a national campaign against hope and optimism.
I would much rather face Hillary in the general. We ought not let our long-festering disdain for BJ blind us to the realities of today.
“Hillary has 100% name recognition and a 50% negative rating.”
You can win with high negatives. Nixon proved that. It is done by driving up the other guy’s negatives, which the Clintons are masterful at. If it is Obama versus McCain, the election will be driven by fear. If it is Hillary, it will be driven by hatred. Hillary is capable of making the American people hate McCain more than her. Obama is not capable of making the American people fear McCain more than they will fear him (Obama).
Irrelavent if those people stay home in November.
Obama would be very tough in the general. If the economy is still weakening all he has to do is come out with an economic plan that isn’t verbatim out of the Communist Manifesto and he wins. He is getting better as a candidate and he hasn’t made any major mistakes. Plus, the contrast of his youthful vigor versus the sickly old man the Republicans have chosen would be dramatic.