Meanwhile, the two Dems who have been most successful against Republicans - Mr. and Mrs. Clinton a collective 4 for 4 in campaigns for national office - are vilified as awful nasty people.

The reality is that the daily drumbeat proclaiming Clinton (or Obama's) electability or lack thereof does nothing but reinforce the notion.

Clinton/Obama I don't have a problem with.  Clinton knows her way around D.C. and Obama needs time to learn the ropes.

Obama/Clinton I have difficulties with.  While I trust Clinton to do her best no matter who she works with, I think Obama is still too inexperienced, still takes politics too personally and is too likely to rely on people he shouldn't trust.

Sorry, BTD, he is going to lose to McCain and we will have four more years of Bush.

I firmly believe that HRC will beat McCain, especially if she picks someone like Wesley Clark as a VP. (I'd love to see Edwards in the spot, but I don't think it's going to happen. AG maybe.)The reason? Her hawkishness and experience make her formidable against him. She has the added bonus of being in the spot most Americans are: she started out favorable to the invasion of Iraq, but now wants to get the hell out. McCain wants to be there for 100 years. Barack's FP advisor was caught saying that his plan for withdrawal was only a "best case scenario." NOT. CREDIBLE.

Obama is riding the same exact unity/change pony that GWB rode all the way to DC in 2000.  And he's got extra rock star juice to feed the pony, as well as a crap economy/foreign policy to run the pony against.  But I think his race (which is a + in some demos but a - in other demos), and more importantly his liberal, his corrupt Chicago and his radical anti-American associations are going to derail him.  That and the fact that there is no there there.  The guy has done nothing but give a speech in 2002.  He's got a thinner resume for the presidency than GWB did in 2000.  He's the absolute antithesis of McCain in every way, and I think this is going to be a brutal matchup for him in the GE.  He's no slam-dunk either.

So yeah, the Dems are not running particularly strong candidates for the GE.  Both have talent, but both have serious baggage.  Both have to rely in part on the field being profoundly tilted for the Dems this cycle to win.  We'll see.

Barack Obama does not hold a candle up to Hillary or to most of those who came before him in terms of experience and qualifications for the job. He reminds me of the Shrub more than anyone else I can think of in this regard.

He talks well, gives speeches, and has developed a cult like following. But as to experience and accomplishments there is not much there.

Nevertheless I was an eager supporter of Barack Obama at first. But over time I came to realize that I could never vote for him. I dislike him intensely for his playing the race card and see him as unworthy of any elected office due to his embrace of black bigotry. I would like to see him driven from public office entirely.

So in my mind I see only one strong candidatem, Hillary, and one stongly disliked candidate, Obama, to run against McCain.

I even think she can win the general election running as an independent in a three-way race. The amount of people willing to write-in Clinton amazes me. There is support for her deeper than that for Obama albeit I do think Obama too has deep support.

I do not yet subscribe to the belief that this election is lost, perhaps we yet to truly commence the battle against the GOP. For what it is worth my efforts and I assume so many others is still focused on the primary. When our sights can be set on McCain, so much the better.

And yes, I strongly believe a Unity Ticket is necessary for Dems to have a good chance in November.

neither would be a suitable pairing for the other: clinton would gain more by being the senate majority leader, and obama's inflated sense of self-importance wouldn't enable him to be the "good soldier" required of the VP. ain't gonna happen.

convince me, or any other sentient being, that sen. obama is the most "electable" of the two.

If either Clinton or Obama were stronger, then one would have emerged as the presumptive before now. We  don't agree on a candidate, but my support for Clinton is probably as tepid as yours for Obama.

Considering that the past 2 elections were close this election can be had. But Dems have been so good through the years of shooting themselves in the foot.

Given the extreme strong underlying pro-Democrat fundamentals, it's very hard for me to imagine how a "generic Democratic white dude" like Chris Dodd or John Edwards or, indeed, John Kerry would lose in this environment.

The Republican coalescence behind McCain is brilliant.  Even though he is not conservative enough or consistent enough for the most conservative portion of the party, there is no question he is acceptable to most Republicans on national security issues and staying in Iraq until we "win."

But no.  We chose two highly problematic candidates. I support Obama, and think he has a better chance in the GE, but not that much better. And I still think that the structural advantages favoring the Democratic candidate are so enormous that either one will still likely win. Just wait for unemployment to top 6% this year - it will be hard for any Republican to win under these circumstances.  But still, we shouldn't be wondering how we're going to get to 270.  We should be winning 40 states and 55% of the popular vote.

In my opinion, this speaks volumes about our party.  What were we thinking?

Being a strong candidate is about more than winning.  It's about being able to scare off prospective opponents.  The strongest candidates don't get any opposition at all.  

"[HRC] is an almost uniquely poor choice to try to expand the Democratic Party's appeal at a time when George W. Bush has brought the GOP into discredit."

Ygelsias creates his own conflict between a 'need to expand democratic appeal' at a time when bush has discredited the GOP. If the GOP is undermined, this would be the time when Democrats are least in need of expanding their appeal because there are fewer competing choices with the repug label trashed, i.e., the choice for republican leaning indies is vote Democrat or don't vote (which also helps Democrats). At same time, bush provides the incitement for a large Democratic turnout regardless of the Dem nominee.

I'd love it if people put more effort into getting the candidates (of all stripes) to address the actual problems of today without resorting to paeans of "hope," "history," and other fuzzy humanisms. Remember, there are real problems that aren't being addressed in the campaigns and they aren't solely associated with any one candidate.

Actually, for hard fought campaigns, the 1960 race has a lot of parallels to 2008. The primary season was hard fought and the nominee was not decided until the actual ballot at the convention. A lot of Johnson supporters were very upset until Kennedy picked him for VP.

Of the two, Obama and Clinton, I currently lean toward Clinton because I think she would do better in the general election. There are a lot of people out there looking for reasons to avoid Obama without appearing to be racists although many of them really are.

In my opinion, Obama is a running a little too early. He has only been on the national stage for a few years. Of his years in the senate, he has really spent almost as much time running for president as being a senator. While I like much about him, his charisma reminds me a lot of John Kennedy, he seems in need of a little seasoning.