You might have missed that in today's Associated Press poll, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 46% to 41%. The reason: The headline to the articles about the poll all say "Obama Leading McCain." (Big Tent Democrat discusses other aspects of the poll here.)

In the fight for their party's nomination, Clinton has a 46 percent to 41 percent edge over Obama, the Illinois senator. That represents virtually no change from last month but a significant tightening since last year, when the New York senator led comfortably in most surveys.

...Democrat Barack Obama would narrowly defeat Republican John McCain if they were matched today in the presidential election, while McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton are running about even, according to new general-election sentiment since the Super Tuesday contests.

So the AP would rather talk about last year than last month, when the big news this month has been Obama's surge...yet it hasn't resulted in a lessening of her lead.

As to the McCain factor, Hillary and McCain are 45% to 46%, essentially a tie. Obama-McCain is 48 to 42%. Then there's this: [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

This is a startling and troubling finding from today's AP poll:

[A]bout one-third of Obama's supporters picked McCain when asked their preference in a Clinton-McCain general election matchup. Nearly three in 10 Clinton backers said they would vote for McCain over Obama.

It seems clear that most of Obama's edge in the McCain matchup is this type of simply unacceptable recalcitrance from Democratic Obama supporters, and Clinton supporters are hardly better.

I will say this bluntly - any person who claims to be a Democrat who will vote Clinton but not Obama, and vice versa, are in a cult of personality and do not deserve to be called Democrats. Such an attitude is simply disgraceful.

The Supreme Court? Iraq? Taxes? The environment? Health care? How could any Dem POSSIBLY support McCain? These are not Democrats. These are petulant, stupid members of cults of personality, for Clinton and Obama. Shame on them.

NOTE: Comments are now closed.

By Big Tent Democrat

Setting an example to us all, Markos and Jerome Armstrong, good friends and writing partners, prove that you can vociferously disagree without having the world come to an end.

I think both have good points and I have to delve into their arguments in more depth to see who I agree with, on what and why. But a big hurrah to both of them for proving that progressive blogs do not have to agree about everything and that disagreement is not the end of the blogs as we know them.

By Big Tent Democrat

His theory is this:

In doing the math on delegates, it looks highly likely that Obama will end up with a pledged delegate lead when all this is finished by June. . . . [H]ow does a party who has protested and screamed and yelled about counting all the votes, that the popular vote matters most, that an election was stolen by the Supreme Court in 2000, go against the votes and participation by voters in the Primary process???

There are two big flaws and one unproven surmise in Dowd's theory. The surmise is that Obama will lead among pledged delegates. That remains to be seen.

The first big flaw is related to that surmise - Florida and Michigan do not enter Dowd's thinking. What happens with Florida and Michigan will likely determine who leads among pledged delegates.

By Big Tent Democrat

I always envisioned the progressive blogs and the progressive base as the Left flank of the Democratic Party, holding both our pols AND the Media accountable. The blogs have certainly held Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on issues, and I applaud them for that. But the blogs generally have not held Barack Obama's feet to the fire. Worse than that, they have not only NOT held the Media to account, too often they have echoed what Paul Krugman labels the Clinton Rules:

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

If folks wonder why I rail about the Media and the progressive blogs on this, I think Krugman offers an explanation:

I'll be at work most of the day. Here's an open thread for you. You pick the topics, whatever is on your mind today.

Caution to new commenters: You must put url's in html format (use the link button at the top of the comment box to paste it in) or it will skew the site and I have to delete your entire comment when I see it. I cannot edit comments, only delete them.

TalkLeft's comment policy is here.

What do we have here -- show trials just in time for the November elections, to help out the Republican nominee? (hat tip to reader Scribe.)

Military prosecutors will seek the death penalty for six detainees at Guantanamo.

Update: The ACLU says the system is flawed.

Via Sebastian Meyer: The U.S. reasoning for the 6 death penalty cases sought in Guantánamo is based on the Geneva Conventions, the very document the U.S. claims does not apply in this case.

Update: The Center for Constitutional Rights which represents one of the six designated for execution is challenging the validity of military comissions and use of torture evidence in death penalty cases.

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article today by Bob Egelko comparing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on crime issues.

Shorter version: They are pretty similar and not particularly liberal (certainly not as much as I would like them to be.)

There are some things I take issue with. For more on Obama's record on crime and defendants' rights, see my earlier analysis here.

It's true, as the article says, that while both support the death penalty, Obama worked to revise it in Illinois to prevent wrongful convictions and Hillary was an early and consistent supporter in Congress of the Innocence Protection Act.

But neither one opposes the death penalty for the guilty. Obama, for example, supported legislation in Illinois to increase crimes eligible for the death penalty -- specifically for those convicted of brutal murders of the elderly and mentally disabled. (Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2001, available on Lexis.com) He also supports it for heinous crimes.

More...

Is this an appropriate photo of Hillary Clinton for Time Magazine? Not to my mind. I think it's very offensive. Not just the depiction, but the uneven anatomy. Gross.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are on 60 Minutes tonight.

If you watched, tell us what you thought. Was the coverage even? Did it change your mind or add to your conviction as to which candidate to support?

By Big Tent Democrat

A lot of my theories of this election will be facing their moments of truth in the next month. I will lay them out here now so folks can razz me on how wrong I was.

The Dem Nomination

Hillary runs better than Obama in contested big state primaries. The tests? Texas and Ohio on March 4th.

As a result, Clinton is still the favorite for the nomination. The test? Well, winning the nomination.

To win the nomination, Obama needs to run better with women, registered Dems, Latinos and working class whites. The test? Again Texas and Ohio on March 4th.

More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

CNN declares Obama the winner of the Maine Caucus. He leads by 58-41 with 70% of the precincts reporting. As many of us expected, it appears Barack Obama will win another February contest.

As Jeralyn reported earlier, Maine has 24 delegates. CNN projects that Obama takes 15 to Clinton's 9 for a 6 delegate gain.

Clinton is very likely to lose every contest until March 4, when big states Ohio and Texas have their contests. What effect will this string of losses have on the campaign narrative?

Update(TL): Comments almost at 250, time to close this thread. Thanks for your thoughts.