"I have to say that it was the nastiness and silly stuff of the Obama supporters on this site that made stop and think about my choice."

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Three months ago, I and almost everyone I know supported Hillary and Barack equally. Now, I and everyone I know no longer support Hillary, BECAUSE OF HER NASTINESS AND DISHONESTY.

There are some rabid Obama supporters, as well as Hillary, and we're not always concise and mature. However, I do know Obama supporters who are putting their money where their mouths are, so to speak, and donating extraordinary sums of money to PA schools via DonorsChoose.org, knitting NICU hats for preemies via Knitters for Obama, and doing other kind acts of service inspired by him.

Don't let a few nasty folks on the internet cloud your judgment of Obama.

Obama can win the general because he motivates and inspires independents and left-leaning conservatives, which expands on the party base. He can win the general because McCain, while experienced, is a candidate who would like to keep us involved in Iraq for an infinite amount of time and the American people are not happy with the war, overall. Obama can win the general election because BIG STATES that go blue will always go blue. Primaries are different than the general election. Who wins which states in the primary doesn't necessarily reflect on who will win the state in the general election.

Rallyround- I'm completely for Obama. Don't care the least for the Clintons. But discussions on this site will not happen. Your post will sink like a stone. And I don't see anyone answering your main question. Let me. I can't stand Hillary. If she is president I will turn off the TV for years. But I'll vote for her without a doubt.

"Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice."

I understand your thought process, and I would respectfully suggest that you have to consider the *huge* negatives that HRC has among non-democrats when you think about electability. I think you also need to consider the way in which HRC as the Democratic candidate will absolutely gavanize the right behind McCain to a degree that (I believe) will not happen if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Finally, I would argue that Obama and everything he has come to represent gives the democrats a far better alternative in a "change election" than HRC does. I think this will come to be important in November.

Both sides have rabid supporters who say stupid and meanspirited things. That has nothing to do with electability, as I see it. And Obama has consistently run a clean and decent campaign. Look at the *candidate's* words and deeds -- not those of the candidate's looniest supporters. After all, the candidate is the one who will be President if he/she takes this thing in November.

"Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice."

You're right - it is the "Clinton argument" conjured up because they are running out of serious arguments. It also isn't based on any facts - just conjecture. Have you heard any serious non-clinton related commentators making that point? I doubt it.

Who says Obama can't compete? The Clintons, that's who. Do you really think he'll lose democratic strongholds like CA and MA because Clinton won them? Please don't fall so easily for Clinton talking points.

As for OH and PA - look how Obama has closed the gap there - even though, unlike Clinton, he was a complete unknown in those states. Imagine how well He'll do when he has even more money nd the whole Democratic establishment behind him.

I've been saying for months that one of the biggest threats to an Obama victory in the fall are his vocal, online supporters. Now there are other threats and I've been mulling over posting something about one later today, but the one that we can do something about and over which we have dominion is the tone of our argument. And, besides the fact that whole segments of the Democratic Party and almost 50& of those who've voted have been ridiculed and dismissed like it's a game, if the vocal Obama supporters carry this tone into the fall campaign, those who might get alienated at that point will almost certainly have some where else to turn.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/clintons-argument-general-elec.php

The Democratic nominees since 1992 have fared better in states that they lost during the nomination campaign (winning 75% of those states in the general election) than they have in states that they won (winning 62% of those states).

I've been saying for months that one of the biggest threats to an Obama victory in the fall are his vocal, online supporters.

You are making the same mistake I have seen people all over the internet make, that I've made myself, and seems unavoidable when we are all so busy looking at ourselves.

We are a tiny fraction of the voters out there, people. WE ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

Disabuse yourself of that notion right now.

LOL!

"Perhaps the Clinton argument has merit. If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election, then Clinton is a better choice."

You're right - it is the "Clinton argument" conjured up because they are running out of serious arguments. It also isn't based on any facts - just conjecture. Have you heard any serious non-clinton related commentators making that point? I doubt it.

Who says Obama can't compete? The Clintons, that's who. Do you really think he'll lose democratic strongholds like CA and MA because Clinton won them? Please don't fall so easily for Clinton talking points.

As for OH and PA - look how Obama has closed the gap there - even though, unlike Clinton, he was a complete unknown in those states. Imagine how well He'll do when he has even more money and the whole Democratic establishment behind him.

In direct response to your question, no.

Clinton's refusal to admit even a slight flaw in judgement over her war vote(s), coupled with the emphasis on rewarding "loyalty" within her staff, reminds me too much of the current White House occupant.

I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for her, so if she's the nominee, that portion of my ballot will remain blank or become a write-in.

"If Obama can't compete in states with large electoral counts in the general election"
Obama can win Ohio/Penn, i don't know or care about Florida. He also does better in most large blue states as well according to polls.

No one seems to get this - but Texas in play if Obama is on the ballot.

There are so many downballot races that could go and should go for Democrats that it could make the difference here for generations.

We started the process in '06, thanks to Howard Dean. But this doesn't get across to people who don't live in Red or Purple states apparently - everyone is quite used to either abusing us or ignoring us. Texas was a Democratic dead zone in '04 and in '00.

And when that happens, we don't vote. And when we don't, the presidential race goes to the GOP.

If we're talking of the campaigns themselves, Hillary has consistently been the attacker and has resorted to very nasty stuff. The Obama campaign has been remarkably restrained in its criticism of Hillary.

A typical sequence is for Hillary to claim Obama is unfit/not ready to be commander-in-chief. Obama says she's a capable person and would be a good president. The attacks on Obama continue and Obama suffers in poll results. So the Obama campaign starts to compare specific experience and to stress the importance of judgment, comparing how judgments on Iraq worked out in the real world. How nasty of Obama!

Hillary pumps up her foreign policy resume. People who were present at events where Hillary implies that she played a pivotal role come forward and say sorry, Hillary did some good things, but her role was incidental. The peace agreement in Ireland is a good example. How nasty of Obama!

When Hillary shoots herself in the foot with an exaggeration like being under sniper fire in Bosnia, which she was using to bolster her claims of experience, a network produces footage from the trip that shows her recollection to be wildly inaccurate. Any reference the Obama campaign makes to the real disparity between what Hillary claimed and what the video showed is beyond the pale. How nasty of Obama!

And then there's this whole poor, helpless Hillary line. I really do not see any evidence of a bunch of men ganging up on poor little Hillary except for one case in the early debates when she was the clear frontrunner and the other candidates focused their criticisms on her. That is what candidates do when there's a clear frontrunner. The frontrunner is the person the other candidates all have to catch. The other candidates happened to be men and she happened to be a woman so some people perceived this as a bunch of men bullying a woman. I confess I didn't like watching it. But if the frontrunner had been a man, it wouldn't have bothered me a bit.

Hillary does represent a lot of criticism that comes her way as a bunch of bully boys attacking a helpless little girl. Anybody who sincerely says extending Hillary's long divisive campaign may cost the Democrats the White House is savaged as a bully boy trying to drive this poor helpless woman from the race. How nasty of Obama! What does this amount to? Her answer to sincere concern about the effects of her divisiveness is to double her bet on divisiveness, especially along gender lines.

This defense has worked like a charm for Hillary. That is amazing considering how it contradicts her claims to being incredibly tough, ready for anything, and able to stand up to the Republican attack machine better than Obama. Is she tough, or does she need rescuing?

Consider also things Obama's campaign is not doing but would be if it were managed in a typical way. They would point out that in fact, the Clintons' inability to cope with the Republican attack machine wiped out much of the 1990s and prevented the Clintons from achieving great things. The Clintons faced the attack machine, won the White House for themselves, but lost both houses of Congress and the hope of enacting a progressive agenda. That is experience, yes, but it's not evidence of success.

By normal political rules, Obama's campaign should be like Hillary's and refer to all the dark and terrible secrets about Hillary that haven't come to light yet - things that in the hands of the Republican attack machine will be devastating, unanswerable, certain to destroy Hillary's candidacy. You have to remember that it makes no difference to the attack machine whether there are any dark secrets about Obama and Hillary or not. The attack machine will invent "secrets" as necessary. Both Democrats will get savaged. The difference in the campaign is that Hillary is saying Obama is herself hinting at dark secrets in Obama's closet, and saying he can't win because of these things that haven't come out yet but, by implication, the Republicans are sure to find. She's lending credibility to Republican attacks before they even start. Another example of Hillary's willingness to help the Republicans in order to hurt Obama: saying McCain has the experience needed for the White House and Obama doesn't. You can go on for days listing the things Hillary has said about Obama that are misleading, untrue or disloyal to the Democratic Party. It's hard to find many comparable things on Obama's side.

Nevertheless, we're talking about rallying to Hillary's support because she's been so mistreated. When she's unfairly attacked, I'll defend her. But attacks by Obama's campaign on her are as nothing compared to the attacks Hillary has heaped on Obama. I guess the anecdote about the woman denied medical care is taken as evidence Hillary is persecuted. In my view, Hillary's story was defensible and I regret the NY Times story and the hospital jumping in demanding she stop telling it, compounding Hillary's embarrassment. But note: Obama's campaign didn't plant that story. On the other hand, Hillary's campaign does plant things with Matt Drudge. In fact, there are reports of a staff member assigned to working with Drudge.

The Clinton campaign tried to get stories written about an Obama weathermen connection. The Clinton campaign circulated the photo of Obama in African native dress. The Clinton campaign tried to marginalize Obama as just another black candidate for America to ignore because well, it was the right thing to do with Jesse Jackson so it's right for Obama - they're both black, right? Hillary met with Richard Mellon Scaife, a chief funder of the attack machine, and all but encouraged Scaife to attack Obama over the sermons of Wright.

Yet Hillary is the victim in all this. The Clinton campaign's most successful attack of all is this myth that she is simultaneously the world's toughest, most experienced leader, ready on day 1 for anything, and a helpless victim cruelly mistreated by bullies while running a campaign as pure as the driven snow. The Clinton campaign goofed in a lot of ways, but they have also masterfully manipulated voters and media alike in too many ways to count.

Ellen, I hope this post doesn't degenerate into a "whose supporters are meaner" debate. It gets nasty on both sides, and it's impossible to quantify who is nastier. Everyone has war stories. There is certainly more anti-Clinton bullying here, unfortunately, but that's a numbers game. There are many more Obama supporters here than Clinton supporters. I expect that it goes the other way at sites with heavy Clinton support.

Regarding electability in OH/PA, I've often argued that primary wins are a poor measure of general election results because they primarily measure the preferences of active Democrats, the vast majority of whom will will vote in Dem in the general either way. Secondly, somebody has to lose primary. If you pit two great candidates against one another (and I think that Clinton and Obama are both great candidates), one of them will win, but that doesn't mean that the other isn't competitive. An extreme case to prove the example is MA. MA voted for Clinton, but of course, it will go Dem no matter who wins the nomination.

The are other ways of measuring electability, but unfortunately, none of them are very good. I've argued in other places about the unreliability of head-to-head match-ups. Some o the best information comes, I think, from demographic preferences, as those will probably remain somewhat consistent in the general. Clinton has a leg up with blue-collar voters, older voters, and women, but Obama is very strong among independents, moderate Republicans, and young voters. So it's also hard to quantify.

To me, the biggest electability points in Obama's favor have been the effectiveness of his campaign and his ability to energize formerly disaffected demographics, such as young voters. But that's no better than an educated guess.

In the end, I think that either one would beat McCain, and I'll be voting for the one that I think would make the best president.

Rallyround: Thanks for this post - for your frankness and for the discussion that it has spawned.

I have found myself somewhat on the other side of the coin. I have been a Clinton supporter who has - from time to time - been angered with some of the twists and turns her campaign has taken (most especially, her husband), and have considered switching my primary support.

There is never a doubt that I will be supporting our eventual nominee, and I have appealed for sanity to prevail among supporters of both candidates. Yet, I also believe that Sen. Clinton is more likely to win and is more likely to be a great President. (Granted, Sen. Obama is more likely to be a transformative President in terms of tolerance and unity - two things that are very important to me - but, I am trying to look at the bigger pictures, too.)

Thanks again for this wake-up call to some of our more fervent (too fervent?) friends.

Thank you for that post. There is another issue that should be of concern to those who want to see a Democrat win in November. Obama's greatest strength is in caucusing. Clinton is more successful in simple ballot voting. In November Obama won't be able to benefit from his superior ability to organize caucuses, nor his youthful supporters' ability to persuade through their enormous energy and enthusiasm, because there will be no caucuses in November. It will be a simple vote.

Thanks for making this post, Ellen. I have been an avid Obama supporter since he was a footnote in the pages of The Nation, and I've been working hard for his campaign. At the same time, I have some nagging doubts about whether this candidate - no matter how shrewd and capable he is - can actually win the election. As we know polls don't mean much, and they certainly don't mean much six or seven months ahead of time; but you still have to stop and wonder when you see Obama trailing McCain so badly in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Can a Democrat win while losing all three of those, and New Hampshire? I know we like the theory that Obama can redraw the map - and I earnestly hope he can - by winning Colorado, Nevada and maybe even Virginia, but that is still just a theory. And it's a big risk to be taking.

This does not mean I think HRC would do much better. I think she would stand an excellent chance of losing even without the baggage of the disputed nomination. All the same, she has the necessary support to make sure NJ, PA, and other states that have been essential to recent Democratic coalitions in our column.

I have to say that it was the nastiness and silly stuff of the Obama supporters on this site that made stop and think about my choice.

I'm sorry, but this just bewilders me. You're going to make your choice about the next president of the United States based on what some people with fake names said on a website? That simply does not compute.

As to your substantive point: It's a crapshoot. My own hunch is that between Clinton's own frequently Republican-lite record (AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman) and campaigning (John McCain is a moderate who's qualified to be CiC), Clinton may have blown her own shot at moderates. I don't think there's any question the Obama will take CA, NY, NJ. PA and OH may be a little tougher, due in no small part to Clinton's scorched earth demagoguery on NAFTA (she peed in her own pool on that one, too.... so much for smart and ready on day one).
My biggest problem with Clinton's electability is that, according to current models which seem to me pretty accurate (again, it's a crapshoot), she needs Florida to win the Electoral College. I know she's ahead of McCain in the polls right now, but I don't see that holding. I think Florida is Red for at least one more cycle. In any case, I don't want to have to rely on that state to put a Democrat in the White House.

That's up for debate. It won't be like it was for Bush, but McCain definitely has some religious right support (Hagee, Parsley). These are people who have the flag next to their pulpits, who say the pledge before they pray, and listen to Bush speak about faith on retreats. If you aren't evangelical or surrounded by them, you just have no idea...

I have every idea - I'm surrounded by them, too. And I disagree with you about what the RR will do this time.

I really do. Bush disillusioned a bunch of them, as it is.

A couple of thoughts...

1) The big state argument is hollow. Any dem will win California and New York. HRC will NOT win Florida. Pennsylvania and Ohio are toss ups, so the better ground game will have the best chance to win those states.

2) The media needs to get a hobby. Obama will not get 100% of the vote. There will be blacks that will vote for McCain instead of Obama, just like there would be women that would vote for McCain over HRC. Find a couple of white dems that say that they won't vote for Obama is not a story.

Ellen,

I look to you for tough minded comments and I think you waver a bit here.

Neither of these two impressive candidates is responsible for their supporters, thank God. Time for the usual Wellington quote "I don't know if they frighten the enemy but by God they terrify me".

Sadly , between the two candidates it's a duel of competing prejudices: racism vs. sexism.(Reminds me of Frost's poem "but hate is also great and would suffice")/ Personally I think racism is more apt to affect the election: more chance of disappointed HRC supporters punishing Obama in November.

Of course Blacks might stay home , and will ,but they aren't likely to vote for McCain out of pique-they'd be going against their interests and convictions. But normally republican women considering crossing over for HRC (as my conservative Catholic friends did for JFK in 60)- could both punish Obama and vote their pocketbooks.

Who cares what stupid things people say in service of either candidate?

The best look at the question the post is posing is the SurveyUSA 50 state polls from a month ago. It shows states Hillary does better in, and states Obama does better in. Obama won more electoral votes in that scenario, and since then he has displayed greater relative strength than Clinton in the Gallup and Rasmussen viz a viz McCain than he displayed on that date (he's stronger now in relation to her).

There are many states she will lose or even fail to compete in that he would win, and other states she will make competitive that he would win in a walk.

Her electability thing is a silly myth. You don't get elected President of Pennsylvania. It's an aggregate concept.

"But normally republican women considering crossing over for HRC (as my conservative Catholic friends did for JFK in 60)- could both punish Obama and vote their pocketbooks."

That's a wrap. I say it this way. A large segment of Hillary's base just needs to define its self interest a little more narrowly than usual, and, unless McCain has a stroke, he's the next President.

As an Ohioan, I am 90% confident that any Dem will carry the state here, almost without question, really.

Gotta remember - we were not long ago caught up in several Republican scandals and we now have a strong Democratic presence in the Statehouse that so far - has been well received.

I think the Obama fall-off here was knee jerk reaction to the Kitchen-Sink crap, she had the 'oh pity me', SNL kiss and make up appearance the Saturday before our primary. She appeared on "The Daily Show' the night before. She threw the Nafta thing out a few days before, and Rezko's trial started the day before. Finally, the Stephanie Power dust-up occurred right before the primary, too.

The NAFTA thing was ridiculous altogether - there is a world of difference - especially here - between trading with Canada and trading with Mexico. Who cares if they re-assured Canada? And the meeting was far more informal and less meaningful than Clinton played it to be, too.

Canada - for those who are not aware - accounts for 20% of our exports, has strong labor unions, aggressive labor laws and similar pay ranges as the US. It is in our great interest to encourage trade with Canada, and when you apply the percentage to Canada - 76% of their imports (value wise) come from us.

In other words - had Goulsbee met with the Mexican embassy - it would have been quite different. Ohioans have no problem with Canadian trade, we have real problems with Mexican trade in certain contexts and even bigger issues with work going to China.

But when it comes to Clinton vs Obama and who is better poised to nail McCain. The question to me is more - who is most likely to be run under the bus, truck and train by the Republican low-lifes?
That would be Clinton, around here - she is infinitely more prone to getting blasted by the GOP thugs. They will constantly replay 'That 90's Show' - you can bet on that.

McCain has some really big vulnerabilities that Obama can exploit and has made some REALLY stupid statements in the past year that an effective ad campaign can use to pretty well lay the guy to waste. He has a voting record on many issues that will totally kill him on both veterans and national security issues. There are a number of ways to make the guy utterly unsavory to many. He will also be at a big loss when it comes to African Americans.

Obama and the Hispanic vote versus McCain - Obama wins it, almost without a doubt. I have exceptionally long ties to Ohio Hispanics (my ex-wife is 1/2 Hispanic, a long time business associate of my own family is, as well) are that would leave me to believe that Obama would win that versus McCain by at least 10%.

I have great concerns about health care, too. I'm self-employed so it would be a boon to me, for sure - and make it easier for me to retain better qualified people.

Recent polls of doctors have shown a trend over the last five years with 59% of doctors preferring the nation move not just to what is wrongly called 'Universal' by Clinton and Obama, but to single payer fully inclusive - screw the insurance companies style coverage.

To me - Clinton's plan with a MANDATE would surely scare the crap out of some people and set the efforts for what the doctors want back even further. I think the opposition that plays party politics will have a harder time beating back Obam's plan.