Trying to determine who is the more electable of the two Democratic candidates is an irrelevant issue. If either Democratic candidate can beat the Republican candidate, it really doesn't matter which Democratic candidate is more electable.

If either Democratic candidate is electable, we are free to consider whom we would want to lead the nation. That may or may not be the more electable of the two candidates. But that doesn't matter if either candidate is electable.

I think thats where the divisiveness, at least on this blog, lies.

Many don't feel Hillary can beat mcCain, thereby being NOT as electable. Many feel the same about Obama.

I think Americans have to decide: do they want to support a candidate on the issues? Or do they want to support them based on who they will beat in November.

Tough choice, I guess. Vote with your heart or your head.

True, but how can one KNOW in April that EITHER is/OR BOTH are electable, particularly when latest polls show both tied with McCain? It's a Democratic Republic/free country nothwithstanding some of the chilling fascist-shift which has occurred of late, so of-course vote for your choice. The candidates' policy platforms are highly-similar, so what's the big deal?

What is clear is that the Democratic party, in fielding two historic candidates has energized its base in a fashion unprecedented since perhaps the Great Depression. Record primary turnouts, fundraising, youthful and new voter participation and registration have resulted both from the candidates themselves and the failed economic and foreign policies of the Bush Administration. Substantial numbers of Repubicans have even switched to become registered Democrats.

These are perhaps the best indicators for Dem hopes in the fall, helping to assuage concerns that the current Obama-McCain/Clinton-McCain ties in late-April polling are meaningless. Although fairly trivial by historical standards, much has been made of the 'divisiveness' of the campaign, with Clinton getting most of the blame. It seems both typical and logical that the candidate (or candidates) who trail always "go-after" the front-runner (as did the entire field when Clinton was substantially ahead early in the campaign).

While Obama leads, he's stumbled quite a bit of late. There's not any reason to insist or believe that he'll beat McCain should any significant portion of Hillary voters no-vote or McCain-vote in the fall. There's equally no reason to insist that Hillary will beat McCain either should the superdelegates choose her, leaving Obama supporters feeling the nomination was 'stolen'. Party and campaign leaders insist that things will somehow come together regardless of the outcome, blah blah. Seems like a desperate hope rather than something based on extended Dem primary fights in recent history... Bush has the lowest approval rating in history, consumer confidence is at 25 year lows, Iraq remains hugely unpopular and McCain is tied with both Dem candidates? Yes, it's April not November, but doesn't something seem wrong with this picture?

PUTTING ASIDE the personal views that each of the candidates, campaigns and supporters have of the opposing candidate, campaign and supporters, doesn't the dream ticket make perfect sense? It's the best(and perhaps only?) way to keep the 50% demographic of the runnerup energized through the fall. After all, isn't winning the White House in the fall AND building useful majorities in both Houses of Congress to implement policy platforms (of either candidate) allegedly the SHARED GOAL of both campaigns?

Yet we are supposed to put our trust in empty promises that everything will be "just fine", the Party will unite and heal itself? Seems like a "desperate hope" rather than anything based on extended Dem primary fights in recent history.

It's way past time all participants live up to their promises of a "new pollitics of hope and

"... latest polls show both [Democrats] tied with McCain"

John McCain is now tied with the Democratic candidates in the polls. So what? McCain has been on a honeymoon with the press since he became the presumptive Republican nominee.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been engaged in a bitter, destructive and pointless knife fight. Well, in 9 days the knife fight will be over.

On May 6 the IN and NC primaries will end the race for pledged delegates. Soon after that Obama will be the presumptive nominee. When Obama and McCain go toe to toe, McCain will drop like a stone in the polls.

Obama 08!

This is more premature speculation that really is meaningless. ANY Democrat should be able to win in November. I am personally backing Obama but if necessary, I would vote for Clinton. And let's stick to the issues, which are substantive and critical, and stop voting based on someones skin color (remember Obama is as much "white" as he is "black", so let's start referring to him as the half white guy from Illinois.), or gender or other factors that have little to do with their individual values and ability to lead our great nation out of so many messes that my head is spinning.

Doesn't the question, "whom will govern the nation better" enter into deciding whom one should vote for, or---since you belong to one team, does it only matter that your team wins?

I think you misunderstand what duties you should perform in a democratic nation and by so misunderstanding are blinded.

Do you really expect either Clinton or Obama to really believe in anything if all you expect and believe in is winning. Isn't that their only goal too?

Doesn't it bother you that your team is now second only to Jim Crow in American history as a vote voider?

Doesn't it bother you that neither of the two surviving candidates--indeed none of the Democratic candidates, objected to a party committee exercising the right to cancel millions of votes? If they won't stand up for counting votes when it matters, what do they stand for?

What's democracy about, if not counting votes?

How can either candidate be fit to lead a democracy if they couldn't simply stand up and say we ought not be letting party committees disenfranchise by the millions?

Do you want your children to inherit that precedent in our national political traditions?

The best thing that can happen is that the superdelegates (you know, those anti-democratic party-appointed free agents who will make the nominating decision instead of voters) pass on the convention's first ballot and open nominations to new candidates who don't start out the general election campaign having earned the hate of millions of Democrats in Michigan and Florida.

It works both for finding the best possible governor and to serve you blind focus on your party winning.

Next, Howard Dean should be traded to the Republicans or, more appropriately, the Russian Communist Party--where party officials deciding instead of voters is long-time policy.

The Democratic Party cannot be successful in the long-term posturing as progressive as it refuses to count votes under the auspices of enforcing rules. Enforcing rules is the same rationale Jim Crow used for not counting some voters. Enforcing rules is the totalitarian alternative to participatory democracy.

Very cute. Now can we get real? The nomination processes are not democratic in any strict sense. So you can stop crying Republican crocodile tears for the Democrats in MI and FL.

Obama 08!

pwoxby

You say "The nomination processes are not democratic in any strict sense."

Shouldn't they be?

Shouldn't we make them democratic?

Shouldn't we hold the politician who cooperate with the undemocratic aspects if the process accountable for their behavior and values?

Shouldn't we hope and work for something better to pass on to our children?

Shouldn't we all vote against Obama because he's no kind of "new kind of leader" who will "change the way Washington does business" when he sees no problem with voter disenfranchisement in the million and says the votes shouldn't be counted unless he gets to say how everybody voted? That sounds more like Stalin than Dr. King.

Isn't he just unfit to hold public power and nothing more than a poser, just like all the rest?

Very cute indeed.