Remember 2004? When the dems picked the "electable" John Kerry over Howard Dean, the guy who got everybody excited?

Dean might not have won - but he wouldn't have lost any more than Kerry did, and the Democratic base would have had a nominee who could generate enthusiasm and get people motivated.

Obama is more galvanizing than Dean ever was.

Clinton isn't nearly as 'electable' as John Kerry was.

Just saying...

The electability issue makes certain assumptions that should not be made; that blacks will vote for Clinton. Ordinarily that would be a safe argument, blacks have overwhelmingly supported Democrats for many years. I don't doubt that blacks would vote for Clinton if she won the nomination by the rules, that is, the most delegates (and Michigan and Florida would not affect the outcome). HOWEVER, if the rules change, or the popular vote were used instead of the delegate count, I wouldn't be at all surprised if blacks sat this election out in protest. In fact, I would venture to guess that many white Obama supporters would do the same. I believe this group, as a whole, would support Clinton if she beat Obama fair and square, but any perception that she didn't, and I don't believe she would get this blocs vote. Without it McCain would win the general election.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to confidently say that either Obama or Clinton is more electable than the other. Too many variables, including the future, which is known to be unpredictable. When a poster claims that the candidate they prefer is less electable than the other, I'll read with interest.

Of course, though, if "electability" has anything to do with the probability of being elected, I would give Obama the nod at this point since he will have the advantage of the Democratic nomination.

HRC's claim rests on her argument that the winner of the white vote should be given the nomination. It's a little disturbing that there are superdelegates who seem to need to take some time to think over what the consequences of biting on that one might be, but I'd still put her chances at zero.

"It's a little disturbing that there are superdelegates who seem to need to take some time to think over what the consequences of biting on that one might be, but I'd still put her chances at zero."

I don't think there are many if any supers who are actually taking a long time to ponder that question. More likely, the ones who haven't declared yet are hoping someone else will put Obama over the top so they don't have to go on record as being against the Clintons. Win or lose, the Clintons will remain major power brokers in the Democratic Party, and if you're a politician in need of party support, you don't want the Clintons against you.

Of course, if Obama wins in November, he'll become a power broker in his own right. But Obama is a) more forgiving than the Clintons, and b) a gamble--after all, if he loses to McCain, his star will fall as quickly as it rose.