The Union Leader has an editorial today that questions one of Hillary Clinton's loudest messages, that she is the most electable and should be the choice in the primary to take on the Republicans.
An electable Democrat: Who says Obama isn't one?
NEW Hampshire Democrats voted for John Kerry in the 2004 primary in large part because they viewed him as the most electable candidate. They've had buyer's remorse ever since.
Now they are making the same calculation about Hillary Clinton. That math might well produce the same answer it did last time.
It goes on to talk about some of the same things that many DKos posters find baffling, that voters say they want change and a fresh voice, but Hillary still leads in the polls (bolding mine).
New Hampshire Democrats tell pollsters that they want a fresh voice. They say they want change. They say they want someone who will do things differently in Washington. They say they want someone who is honest and trustworthy, who agrees with them on the war in Iraq and who inspires them. They say they value change over experience.
And by and large they say Hillary Clinton represents none of these things. Yet they say they prefer her as their party's nominee. Why?
The editorial goes on to surmise that this can only be explained by the voters thinking Hillary is more electable even though the polls show they think Obama is more honest, more likable, more trustworthy and more inspiring. It's refreshing to see a major newspaper acknowledge that Hillary's claim to be more experienced is flawed and that Obama actually has more elective experience than she does and that if experience is so important, other candidates like Biden and Dodd and Richardson have a lot more of it.
Granted, Obama has only a few short years of experience in elected national office. But then, so does Clinton. Obama actually has more experience in elected office than Clinton does. Her Washington experience consists mostly of being the wife of the President. That counts for something, but does it really count as a qualification for the Oval Office?
The editorial then wonders why they think Clinton is more electable.
But there is little reason to believe that Clinton has a better shot at victory next November than Obama does.
Do New Hampshire Democrats really believe Clinton, one of the least liked politicians in America -- even among Democrats -- is the most electable?
Seems to us that New Hampshire Democrats' hearts are with Obama but their heads are with Clinton -- and only because they figure other Americans will choose Clinton so they might as well too. That doesn't strike us as a very good deal for Democrats who are tired of the Washington establishment.
Yes, electability matters. But simply assuming that Clinton is the most electable candidate is assuming a lot. Especially when Republicans are itching for their chance to take her on.
It's short of an outright endorsement for Barack Obama but for all of his supporters, it's very encouraging that they see and are pointing out to their readers the fallacies of Clinton's claims. And the more Hillary's lead in the polls decreases and Obama continues to show an upward trend, I think more and more voters will also begin to have the same doubts about her electability as this editorial writer does.