As for the GE, I think one big albatross for McCain could be his support for the surge. He's banking his entire foreign policy reputation on the surge, and so far it hasn't hurt him. If things are still the same in November, however, you'll only hear "the surge is working" from those who are ridiculing McCain.

Regardless of how unseemly it is, we all know it will happen.  Add to that his middle name, the fact that he is an anti-war dove (works for the left...not so much for the swing voters), the lack of foreign policy experience, the fact that he tends to sit out the more controversial votes, the air of superiority/smugness that he exudes (however unintentional - it is what it is).

I think he and his campaign may have bought into his hype to their own detriment.  They have accused everyone short of the pope of being racist and there will likely be a backlash from middle-class, blue collar dems who are hypersensitive about being accused of racism every time they mention blacks.  Not to mention the fact that those of us who are not college educated are getting a little bit tired of being talked down to by his campaign and the many, many pundits who seem to have fallen head over heels for him.  

First, Dems are split and the division is almost as deep as the partisan divide between blue and red.  I could make a strawman argument that, were Clinton to win the nom. via SD swing, Obama might pull Reagan and say, 'well I'm taking my voters with me, see ya in 2012.'  Is that likely?  I don't know.  But if Clinton does win the nom. at the least I think black turnout will be suppressed which hurts her chances.  Conversely if the SDs swing for Obama, then I think there will be a significant suppression of white voters who are alienated from Obama via Wright and women who think that Hillary hit the proverbial glass ceiling.

2.  McCain is fairly popular as a whole.  He plays well in swing states and regardless of idealogical differences he will have the GOP base show up on election day, cemented by the Wright comments.  At this pt I'd have to give McCain even odds at pulling virtually every state that Bush pulled.  CO is a toss up though I'd give the edge to McCain at this pt.  I think the Wright comments and other gaffes hurt Obama in every state he won pre-gaffe including IA.  I actually think Hillary has a better shot in IA than does Obama.  We know Hillary is going to pull the blue states, she's running great in PA, did well in OH, and probably would do well in MI.  The numbers she pulled in FL are incredible.  If she can take OH it is over.  But she will also win Arkansas which Obama can't win.  She did well enough in TN to make that a definite possibility.  States she would need to work at are WI, MN.  I give Obama LA.  I think that LA would have been motivated to vote Dem regardless but the large black population might be enough to put Obama over the top and I just don't see black turnout being high enough if Hillary is the nominee.  NM, NV, CO  are all toss ups for Obama while NV and NM might be a toss up for Hillary.  

In other words I think Hillary is far more electable.  I think the novelty of Obama is wearing off as more of his past is actually brought to light.  While I can personally see how Wright's comments aren't as inflammatory as they seem if taken in context...I can see how the GOP is going to play the comments and tie them to Obama's denial of hearing such comments onto Obama admitting he had heard such comments.  (the Wright believes there is endemic white racism line from his speech is not helpful to Obama) All those white majority states that Obama has won in the primary season become less likely in the GE:  IA, MN, WI, MO.  

Recap.  They both still win the blue states.  Hillary takes FL, MI, OH, PA, AR, WI, MN  with possibility of TN,IA ...outside shot at NM, NV,

Obama holds WI and MN and OBama possibility in LA, NM, NV, CO, IA, OH,PA outside shot at MI,FL

But that is hardly a good example of the problem Obama raises. NH is the second primary in the entire nation, and people's opinions are hardly settled and firm at that point.

Obama's problem is that in large swing states, well into the process, and even when he has a lead every voter likely knows about, he can't convince crucial segments of the voting population that they can rally around him as the presumptive nominee. Instead, a majority of voters steadfastly refuse him their endorsement.

Clinton is pretty much unelectable in say, Colorado.

Colorado...no recent polling

Missouri...
report from Survey USA released on 3/19 shows Obama losing but Clinton winning.

Massachusetts...
report from Survey USA released on 3/20 shows Obama puts MA in play where Clinton carries it easily

But fundamentally, who cares? The system is based on pledged delegates and super-delegates. Period. There's a set of rules everyone agreed on. The wisdom of those rules is irrelevant at this point. The Clinton campaign is entitled to do whatever it wants to get superdelegates to come over to her side to even out the pledged delegate deficit. My take is that whatever the arguments, the superdelegates aren't going to go against a clear pledged delegate leader. And I think they'd be extremely ill-advised to do so. But the superdelegates do have this power under the rules. But these constant efforts to say the rules aren't fair are just silly, and truth be told I think they're more undermining of the Clinton campaign than they realize.

Would the dem party voters really bite/ spite their noses like this?

Don't we all know by now that the Republicans don't exactly play nice?  What Hillary has thrown at Obama is NOTHING compared to what he will face in the fall.  Team Obama's whining about his opponent's tactics aren't going to have the same impact on the general electorate (read: swing voters) as it does on the much more peace-loving left.  

The vast majority of both candidate's voters will vote for a Democrat in November.   Voters in primaries are, for the most part, solid partisans that won't be changing tickets.  

However some may choose not to vote.  So for argument's sake, let's say 15% of the primaries voters are up in the air.  The question is which candidate is more likely to bring them back to the Dems in November?

Additionally which candidate is more likely to get non-traditional Dems to vote for them?  Independents, moderate Republicans, and traditional detached voters.

The big state argument has always been flawed, just as the red state argument by Obama is flawed.  

To the extent Obama redraws the map, it s looking like he'll have to spend more resources defending home turf (e.g. MA).

Let's be blunt: 8 months is a lifetime politics, and given that 8 months ago, Hillary Clinton had an unbeatable lock on the nomination, it's pretty stupid to argue, based on anecdotes and a couple of polls, who's going to have better luck going head-to-head with John McSame.

Obama raised $55 million in February. He has $30 million on hand and has been raising $2 million a day, with no sign of let-up and without maxing out his millions of small donors. In total he's raised $194 million.

Clinton raised $35 million in February. She has $22 million socked away for the GE, if she has a chance to use it. In total she's raised $156 million.

McCain, on the other hand, has $8 million in cash on hand, $3 million of which is for the GE. In total he's been able to raise $60 million. And he's in trouble for breaking campaign finance in his attempt to game the public financing system.

The Republican brand is damaged across the board with scandals and incompetence and even in the reddest states no one wants to contribute to them. Their base has lost faith in their party being true purveyors of conservative values.