Electability is created by talking heads to get you to care what they think and to avoid talking about policy.  There's no there there.

More importantly, Democrats suck at predicting electability because electability requires you to predict what will happen in November 2008 after a long general election campaign.  I don't even know if Obama or Clinton will win Texas in a couple weeks, much less what either will look like by November 2008.  There are too many things that can happen in a campaign and in the world.

Remember the last candidate nominated for his "electability" was John Kerry.  Now, in retrospect, it was easy to see why he'd be a bad candidate.  Can't put a sentence together without immediately trying to rewrite it in the next breath.  A 20 year voting record in the Senate to pick through.  Instead, all we heard from the media was that Democrats were soft on terror and we needed a war hero.  

Now, maybe Kerry was the most electable and Dean or Clark would've been worse.  We don't know and will never know.

What I do know is the very thing the media convinced so many Dems made Kerry electable - his Vietnam war hero status - contributed to his loss.  Nobody foresaw that the GOP would smear him on that or that he'd do such a crappy job responding to it.

I believe either Clinton or Obama will become the next president of the U.S.   But I also believe either have the capacity to lose to John McCain if things go wrong in the campaign.  If that happens, I can easily hear Democrats say

"I can't believe we nominated a black guy with only two years of Senate experience, who had never faced a serious GOP opponent,  who used squishy rhetoric about change that let the GOP define him, and who depended on winning independents from John McCain.  What were we thinking?"

And I can hear

"I can't believe we ran a woman in the middle of a war and one who went in with high negatives and united the Republican base and who the mainstream media hates.  What were we thinking?"