Romney vs. Giuliani On Immigration

LESS POLARIZING THAN CLINTON?

Obama's Contention Finds Support in Poll Numbers

This week Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) offered what many believe is his strongest argument for his candidacy against that of Hillary Clinton: that he is a less polarizing figure on the national scene.

In making this case, Obama can find both affirmation and reason for concern in an intriguing nugget in the Washington Post-ABC poll on the Democratic presidential race released late last month. Simply put, independents and Republicans seem to recognize that Obama has the potential to appeal to voters outside the Democratic base -- but Democratic voters themselves don't yet seem to be taking that fully into account.

Asked which Democratic candidate would have the "best chance to defeat the Republican nominee in the general election," 54 percent of Democrats polled said Clinton, compared with 22 percent who said Obama.

But when the same question was put to independents and Republicans, they had a notably different view: 35 percent of independents said Clinton would have the best chance, and 29 percent said Obama would; 37 percent of Republicans said Clinton would have the best chance, compared with 33 percent who said Obama. What to make of this 17-to-19-percentage-point gap in the estimation of Clinton's general election prospects between Democrats and other voters?

Perhaps independents and Republicans -- the very voters whose views matter most, come November 2008, in determining a Democrat's electability -- are basing their estimation of Clinton's chances on their own misgivings about her.

Leslie Gallagher, an independent from Fairfax County who responded to the poll, has doubts about Clinton's ability to change people's minds about herself, and she says Obama would have a better chance of winning in 2008.

"Too many people say, 'There's something about her I don't like,' " said Gallagher, a 50-year-old homemaker who voted for John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. "She's been in the public eye for a long time, and everyone's had a long time to form opinions about her. I'm not sure she can turn it around."

-- Alec MacGillis

LABOR AND LUCRE

Realities Led Edwards To Scale Back in Nevada

John Edwards's decision yesterday to pull campaign resources in Nevada -- the same week that Barack Obama launched radio ads in the state -- reflects two difficulties for the Edwards candidacy: his lack of money and strong union backing.

Apart from having at least $20 million less cash on hand than Obama, Edwards is also missing support from the labor unions he has spent the years between his presidential runs aggressively courting.

And in Nevada, union support is crucial, especially the backing of the Culinary Workers Union, made up of approximately 60,000 casino, food service and hospitality industry workers. It has a strong reputation for turning out votes for Democrats, and Nevada political observers say its endorsement is tantamount to winning the caucus.

Edwards aides said his campaign will move Nevada resources to Iowa and New Hampshire, and Democratic sources say this decision may point to a shift in strategy for Edwards. Earlier, he had been focusing on the four early states. Now, he appears to have a more Iowa-focused approach, hoping a win there can springboard him to the nomination -- just as it did for his 2004 running mate, John Kerry.

-- Perry Bacon Jr.