I think that the choice is really whether we're going to have a fighter, a doer, and a champion again in the White House. Somebody who gets up every single day with determination, backbone, and yes, toughness.

I'm sorry, but that's just cr@p.  If I'm not mistaken, there are a very many in this country who are just fine with being in their own little worlds (I point to the previous part of the original post about Alabamans voting red), being who they are, and don't want to be forced to work together.  It's just reality.  Sad, but true.  We need a tough person who will say "Too bad!  This is how the problem's going to get fixed!" not someone who will say "Well, but I said that we should work together..."

As for either nominee, the Dems should NOT take for the stance that we can win this... we will have a fight in the GE. The simple fact is ... if we get too comfortable then we may not see either of these candidated in the White House.

Unity in the Dem Party is the utmost importance BEFORE we head into the GE.

Although we need to know the weakness of each candidate, the zealous behavior for one candidate over the other will in the end cost us the election.

In that....
Jeralyn and BTD do a great job in letting the "weakness of each candidate" being discussed.

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him. Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates

This column says it's better to choose the person who best represents what you believe a president should do for the country. I tend to agree. Polls can be so misleading--as the author says here, vote for "who you believe will be the best president."

...we can toss around poll numbers that claim one thing or another about the general election. But as we've learned this year more than ever, polls can't be trusted (think Clinton versus Obama in New Hampshire last month). And history agrees: In March of 2004, John Kerry was slaughtering Bush in the general election polls; in July of 1988, former Governor Mike Dukakis was trouncing Bush the Elder. If you haven't heard of Dukakis, take that as an indication of just how unreliable polls can be - especially those conducted months in advance.
SNIP
With all these persuasive arguments swimming around, we can't be sure which holds the most water, what will occur in the nine months before the election to alter these electability equations, or whose theory will bear fruit come November. As such, Lengle admitted, "Basing your vote on electability is a dicey operation."

So I beg you: Do not vote for who you believe to be the most electable; vote for who you believe will make the best president.