These past weeks, Obama has been touting that he's the more electable between him and Clinton. Do we really have enough material to determine who's really more electable?
Every time the issue of "electability" is brought up, I can't help but remember the November 2004 presidential election, and I can't help but wonder why so many Democrats have such short memories. It is on the issue of "electability" that more questions than answers arise for me.
Isn't "electability" the reason that we nominated John Kerry? Didn't he seem "more electable" than Howard Dean? How can so many Democrats be so absolutely certain that Obama will be more electable than Hillary in the general election? What will happen when the GOP finally rallies around McCain and brings out their full arsenal? We know Clinton will fight back and get down and dirty, if necessary, but what will Obama do? We know what the GOP will hurl at Hillary, but what will they hurl at Obama about whom we know so little? What about the fact that McCain has a track record of attracting Democrats and Independents, so much so that he's been described as the third Democratic senator from California?
I switched my allegiance from the GOP to the DNC only in 2003. Most of my friends are GOP members, and I know what they're going to do in November. So I, for one, a Californian, am about to cast my primary vote for HRC. I believe she'd make a great president for a lot of reasons, and as Thomas Edison once remarked, "Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration."