If you want to know who is more electable, just ask people who have an interest in knowing the correct answer yet are unbiased. When answering most questions, it is difficult to find those who fit both categories, but in this case, there is an obvious group - Republicans.

They seem to think Obama is more electable. Granted, I don't think Limbaugh has been calling for Democrats to vote for Clinton recently (and you could argue that served the purpose of lengthening the race and weakening the Democrats as a whole), but McCain seems to be taking aim at Obama on a regular basis, and the North Carolina GOP seems to prefer that people vote for Clinton.

On an unrelated note, I have seen a lot of posts suggesting that women will vote for Obama over McCain despite being upset about Clinton losing because of the abortion issue. As an Obama supporter, I would be a fan of this argument if I thought it were true, but I think it is way off base. If women always voted for the pro-choice candidate, we wouldn't have GW in the White House. Remember "security moms" from four years ago?

"If women always voted for the pro-choice candidate, we wouldn't have GW in the White House."

No, the premise is that liberal women care about reproductive rights. I just don't see them defecting to John McCain out of spite.

Obama 08!

I am a liberal mom, of a daughter, in CA. I won't necessarily defect to McCain. But I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

Fringe candidate? Maybe. Sit out the vote for the first time in my life maybe. I have had two families in the white house for almost 3/4 of my voting years. I don't need another set of Clintons. Do we forget they did nothing in Rwanda? Nothing in Bosnia. He didn't use his popularity at the time for anyone but himself. Genocide didn't matter.

Somethings do trump reproductive rights. Those living among us being currently murdered, I want leadership that takes a moral high road - that is something this country has lacked for at least 30-40 years!

My daughter has asked me what I will do if the DNC annoints Hillary as they Supremes annointed Bush. I've told her, "sometimes, we have to act on our morals in a way which feels really uncomfortable".

(By the way - I am not a religious person - just a moral person).

The DNC has been calling me for donations for months now and I keep telling them - there will not be a check from our household if Hillary is nominated with Super delegates or delegates from the 2 disputed states.

I will register Independent and my money will never go to the dems again.

I feel that Obama has something great to offer this country, and when we speak of working class and older Americans not voting for him, at least in PA and OH, speaking with displaced citizens from the states who have made their way west, they translate that into "racism" but not going to say that to a reporter.

Is it elitist to have those who are educated, young and bear the future want better leadership than what we have been given? No way!

Give me Obama! For my future, for my kids future, so I can be proud of my Country!

I am also an Obama supporter. In the same scenerio where the super delegates overturn the state delegate totals and hand the nomination to Hillary, I'm not so quick to surrender the White House to McCain.

The resentment for Hillary would be unbelievably strong and she'd go into the general election as the most unpopular candidate in modern history.

But, what if she decided to ask Obama for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket?

Actually its an assurity. Hillary would have to put Obama on the ticket to win, and to satisfy the delegates and super delegates.

Just a scenario. I don't suspect Obama will lose the nomination.

I'd never vote to elect McCain though. Even if it meant voting for Hillary. Who I can't stand,

A vote for McCain or 3rd party, or staying home would be an act of boneheaded stubbornness.

I suspect the strong feelings of Obama or nobody now for the most part wouldn't carry into the general election.

Though it would be a very risky move. I don't suspect the super delegates are looking for a scenerio that is the biggest gamble.

Give Obama the nomination. He's earned it. He has the lead. He came from being basically unknown, to winning state after state.

It says as much about him, as it does about Hillary Clinton.

"If you want to know who is more electable, just ask ... Republicans.... McCain seems to be taking aim at Obama on a regular basis, and the North Carolina GOP seems to prefer that people vote for Clinton."

This seems reasonable on the surface, but I wonder how much of the Republican response stems from a "Has-the-whole-world-gone-mad?­" incredulity that there a candidate could come along that excites more disgust among grown-ups even than Hillary. The farthest-left guy in the Senate, with little experience, and THAT being tainted with connections both racist and corrupt, an empty suit flying on charisma-- how could it get any worse? It's one thing to drink the Kool-Aid, but it's insane to then explicitly claim that charisma-- the political opiate of the emotionally-vulnerable masses-- is good for the nation. Call it "just words" or "inspiration," but in fact it's emotional manipulation. It's alarming that America's intellectual elites have so much confidence in their intellectual sophistication that they can't see when they're being had emotionally.

Obama's candidacy is so, well... postmodern, an outsome of an academic conventional wisdom that insists that there's (absolutely) no such thing as objective truth, and then prides itself on its "subtlety" of thought. He's candidate for the painfully ironic, who skipped the passage in Fear and Trembling where Kierkegaard noted how stale studied irony was in 1848. Skeptical ironists make little of the difference between style and substance, between being and appearing, and Obama is the perfect candidate for them. The emperor has no clothes, but they seem so pretty anyway.

Obama is the candidate most capable of making some people feel good about themselves, but this can be a huge problem if the facts of the matter are not something appropriately felt good about. He feeds into left-wing narcissism (not to imply that the right lacks its own narcissism). He's been compared to JFK, a president who accomplished nothing actual, and who'd have no legacy at all if he hadn't been assassinated. Some say HE was inspirational, but the demographics of the early 60s would have made a revivification of American politics inevitable anyway, with him or without him. The question for today is whether or not this is the time for another empty-suit charismatic Kool-Aid vendor.

This is more likely why the Republicans attack Obama. He's accomplished what seemed impossible a year ago-- he's made Hillary seem like a reasonable candidate, someone who could be tolerated if she won. But Obama's candidacy is absurd and unthinkable. He's got no more substance than the reflection of the far-left's self-image in a pool of water.

@ bob808:

"grown-ups"

"an empty suit"

"drink the Kool-Aid"

"opiate of the... masses"

"intellectual elites"

"postmodern"

"studied irony"

"The emperor has no clothes"

"left-wing narcissism"

Wow! What a pastiche of tired cliches. And all in support of this gem of nonsense: "But Obama's candidacy is absurd and unthinkable."

Obama 08!