On a few occasions over the past couple of weeks, I have mentioned an initiative with respect to going on the attack against John McCain.  With that, I have created a Google Group called "Know Your McCain" and we are looking to gather information (old and new), create viral videos, write blog posts and use social networking to spread the message about how dangerous John McCain is.  

You can look for diaries with the tag "Know Your McCain", and some diaries will have the "Know Your McCain" in the title as well.  If you are interested in joining the Google Group or helping out with Facebook or MySpace, please send me an email (address is in my profile).

***************************

So much seems to always be made about Obama or Clinton or whoever else’s so-called "electability issues" – most of which turns out to be nothing more than a hunk of nonsense strung together from bits of polls, magnifying tiny segments of the population into a much larger group or whatever other themes that the Village wants to conjure up.

All the while, there has been no mention of the tremendous electability issue and problem that faces one John Sidney McCain.  

Seriously.

Suppose for the moment that Hillary really does want to continue to fight for the Democratic nomination in Denver.  Will it even be possible for her to put forward a strong argument that she should be the nominee?

So the other day I was really bored and like any sane body who is bored would do, I fiddled around with the Presidential electoral map on USA Today I was checking out the different scenarios on how easily it could be for Obama to win. Then all of a sudden I thought, "Is Clinton more electable?"  What I came up with was a bit shocking, more below the jump.

Lately, caucuses have been getting a really bad rap.  Clinton and Clinton supporters disparate caucuses as illegitimate, un-democratic systems for choosing the democratic presidential nominee.  

Now, we all know that this sudden movement against caucuses has risen only because Clinton lost ALL the caucus state elections (I consider Nevada an Obama victory).    

In this diary, I want to offer a defense of caucuses, and argue that the democratic presidential primary process should continue to include a mix of caucuses, open-primaries, and closed-primaries.  Caucuses are an important part of the process.  They are legitimate, I argue, because not only are they democratic in nature, they also provide an invaluable measure of electability factors, factors that primaries are not able to effectively measure.  Moreover, contrary to what Clintonites argue, Obama's overwhelming victories in caucus states provide a strong basis for arguing that Obama is more electable than Clinton.  Analysis after the fold.  

Bill Clinton said this pitiful thing over the holiday:

And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes. ... She will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't."

The shadowy "they" does not exist. It's pretty clear that either Hillary or Obama could beat curmudgeonly McCain. The Republicans got a really weak hand this year. Edwards could beat him, too.

Bill - it's not about winning, it's about leading. Who do people want to lead them? People want Obama more than Hillary.

Be gentle, it's my first DKos diary. I'm no stranger to vigorous online debate, but  I'm pretty new here and I understand that different places have different cultures.

I have been watching the furor over Clinton's RFK assassination reference with a weird mix of disgust, glee, and puzzlement. Her statement was disgusting, as it has been every time she has said it, starting about  2 months ago when she said the same thing in a Time interview.  I was tickled pink by the way the MSM latched onto this instance and by how many of the talking heads agreed that this may well be the end of her campaign, including her chances at the VP slot. But I was puzzled by the absence of the analysis I did not hear, and which I have not seen here or anywhere else Friday evening.  

Hillary Clinton was not inciting murder or providing a logical rationale for her continuing but fundamentally hopeless campaign based in the chance of a catastrophe. In other words: she was not really answering the question being asked. She was simply making a harshly pragmatic electability argument to the only audience that really matters now: the superdelegates.

More below....

But please, people.  Stop putting so much weight on state by state polls as opposed national polls.

I know I am touching a raw nerve with some people because of the 2000 debacle.  The winner of the popular vote lost the Electoral College and the loser became president.  You'll note, though, that this was because a recount of Florida was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Were the outcome determined fairly, Al Gore would have won the Electoral College in addition to winning the popular vote.

And even this was a rare exception in the past 130 or so years of American presidential electoral politics.

When this contest began, Obama was clearly the most electable candidate.  His widespread appeal among independents and even crossover Republicans, particularly in such a blue wave year, made any general election outcome a forgone conclusion.  His most difficult task would be to win the primary against a very strong array of candidates and a hostile establishment.  But that was before the kind of campaign you decided to run.

Consider this a call on Hillary supporters to stop for a second, and try to understand why many of us do not support her being chosen as VP. And it’s also a call on you Obama supporters to start trying to use more reasoned, logical excuses for opposing Hillary as VP. "We don’t like her", or even, "We don't like her policy stances," aren’t good enough reasons.

And lest anyone have any doubt, I think it’s now pretty clear that is what Hillary and her campaign are angling for... pushing for the VP spot. She’s not stupid. She understands that it’s impossible to catch up in the delegate count. She understands that it’s impossible to catch up in the popular vote count -- unless, that is, they include Florida and Michigan (based on the original results), and exclude some of the caucuses. Yet Hillary continues to push on, saying "This thing is far from over." So what’s up? Is she delusional or what?

Nope. She’s just trying to make the case for this being "so close" that Obama has to pick her as his running mate.

This Poll was posted earlier. But the previous post, only gave brief outlines. But for those, who can't read the whole 17pg ABC poll. I just wanted to highlight a few excerpts right here! You won't regret my companion post, or the ABC/WAPO Poll. I'd like to thank, Max NYC, for his original post earlier.

Don't let the media dictate, false talking points.

In general election matchups, Obama leads McCain by 51-44 percent, similar to the last
two ABC/Post polls. Standings in a Clinton vs. McCain race are 49-46 percent, again
roughly similar to previous ABC/Post results.

Obama also leads in electability vs the struggling Clinton. The ABC poll states, Obama maintains his 12 point lead from ABC previous polls 53 to 41%

Democrats by a 12-point
margin would rather see Obama as the nominee, a lead that’s held steadily in ABC/Post
polls since early March. Instead it reflects a rejection of the notion that the drawn-out
contest will hurt the party’s prospects.

There's more highlights below. http://www.abcnews.go.com/...

or Mom and Dad, as the case may be.

This probably comes as a shock to nobody, but the MSM is doing a disservice to you.  This of course is putting it mildly, as what I am about to discuss goes beyond just doing a disservice, but when it comes to this "working class white" narrative, they are really putting themselves over the top when it comes to creating a nonexistent news story.

What does this rant on the MSM have to do with Grammy and Grampy, or Mom and Dad as the case may be?  You’ll have to follow me over the fold...

Since Obama (an "elitist" who only a few years ago finished paying off his student debts; a "Muslim" who is blamed for his Christian pastor) did not win most big states, he may be not electable.

Is that true?

Hillary’s entire candidacy has been reduced to her arguing for her own electability. Today her campaign went so far as to circulate this PowerPoint presentation to super delegates outlining the rationale. At this point, I think it’s important to revisit something Bill Clinton said about electability a few months ago. And wouldn’t you know it. Back in September, he said something very different than the current campaign.

Taylor Marsh, Lanny Davis, Joe LIEberman, Mark Penn, Harold Ford, Susan Hu, Alegre, etc...  It is disgusting people like the aforesaid who are precisely why Democrats never attained more than 50.8% of the vote in any presidential election since 1964 and it is people like this whom we need to make a clean break from as Democrats.  It is their attitudes, their euphoria for being Stockholm Syndrome democrats, and their immoral characters that gave us 12 years of Bushes, 8 years of Reagan, and two terms of Nixon.  And it's time we make a clean break from these cancerous types.

If Democrats want to be a majority party for the next 40 years, and I think we will be, then we need to distance ourselves from these one percent dead enders and stick to our core FDR/Truman/JFK principles of being honest in the presentation of our ideas, applying ethics universally, implementing pro middle class domestic policies, protecting everyone's civil liberties, and making foreign policy decisions based on facts and national security instead of opportunism and Halliburton spreadsheets.

Roland Martin on CNN finally wrote what I have been screaming inside my head for over a week. Clinton today came out with her "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Mind the gap

Senator Clinton has her fair share of supporters, and we are delusional if we think Obama doesn't need them in November. That said, a big reason why Clinton supporters feel that they cannot support Obama is because of:

Electability. They believe he absolutely cannot win against McCain.

Electability is a hypothetical, intangible marker that cannot be accurately measured. Daily tracking polls, anecdotal goodies, and polls conducted six months before elections are not accurate indicators of electibility. To somehow demonstrate the concept of electibility, one must simply be able to prove that they can win elections. In the end, of course, the ability to win is what electability is all about.

Clinton supporters have constantly maintained that Obama is not electable, and firmly believe he cannot win the general election and use this to justify supporting Clinton. But again, since elections are the best way to measure electability, Obama has won more contests than Senator Clinton. He demonstrates an ability to win where Clinton does not.

In the days since Pennsylvania and the months since Ohio and Texas, we have been witnessing an electability "debate" that has universally promoted Hillary Clinton, despite all evidence to the contrary.

So I have decided to respond with a message that I have been emailing to every cable news show that I know:

For those of you who were (needlessly) worried about the Tony Rezko trial providing some sort of secret bomb that would blow up in Obama's face, rest easy.

From the Chicago TRIBUNE less than an hour ago:

"With surprising swiftness, testimony at the corruption trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko concluded Monday. Prosecutors rested their case after more than nine weeks of testimony, and Rezko's lawyers quickly followed suit without calling a single witness.

"We do not believe the government has met [its] burden proving the charges against Mr. Rezko, plain and simple," Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said in explaining his tactical decision not to mount a defense case."