This is going to be a short diary, but it's a little too much for a comment.
I have a question for Obama supporters, especially those who point to Obama's wins in caucus states in deep Red areas as signs of his electability. The general election is not a caucus. It is a regular election. If Obama cannot outperform and often underperforms in regular elections (e.g., primaries), how does it speak to his electability? If he cannot outperform after the past week with him getting the most positive establishment support and the most positive media coverage of any candidate that I've ever seen, how does that speak to his electability?
I've been impressed with Senator Obama, and would be glad to support him if he were the nominee. I'm taking a closer look at electability on both candidates. Clinton does very well among key swing demographics women, hispanics, and southerners; she does very well among the traditional Democratic base of blue collar and lower income Democrats.
On the other hand Obama has done amazingly well in states like Idaho, Kansas, Iowa, and the Midwest. My question is, can Obama actually carry these states? Under what scenario does he translate his electability advantages such that they outweigh Hillary's electability advantages? On the other hand, could Hillary really win Tennessee, Arkansas or Oklahoma? Because currently, I'm not seeing a clear difference one way or the other. They each seem to have their advantages and disadvantages.
I think we as Democrats need to think hard and objectively about electability apart from the candidates we support. I'm going to try to do that and I hope Obama supporters will join me.