I liked her answers better, and I have also read about one of his advisors promoting privatization.

His inexperience is a big big liability. On top of that till date, he has no record whatsoever of having fought for or worked for causes that are important for Democrats.
A nytimes report clearly stated that Obama mostly didn't take a stand on issues lest he left a paper trail. is that a strong or courageous candidate by any count?

You would argue that even Bill Clinton hardly had any experience - true. But see the country now and see the country when Bill took over. There is a big difference. Right now more than ever the country needs an able experienced hand to guide it through the mess it is in. Obama's on the job training may prove to be a very expensive exercise for the Country ath this stage after Bush's on the job training. And the last thing we need now is an indecisive candidate who till date didn't have the strength to make a stand on any issue besides vague generalities.

"Party pros/superdelegates don't look at margins, they look at exit polls -- they don't care how many votes you get, its where you get them from that matters, and if you can't get them against Hillary Clinton, you're not going to get enough of them against John McCain."

Atrios disagrees, obviously.

But I can't help but wonder...with the ton of money, the favorable press and the adulation of Obamacons, why hasn't BO knocked the little lady off yet (you know the one I mean...she throws kitchen sinks, china (not China!), the buffet and other stuff at him and is petty and trivial)??

Atrios actually does have a point in that it's nearly impossible to tell who will do better in the general given our history of candidates and how they poll vs. how they end up doing in the general. So an argument for supporting who you think would be the best president and who most closely aligns with your views is pretty valid.

Obama's lack of clear policy stances make me pretty nervous. And especially is lack of strong stand on choice make me really nervous. That is, he has said he hasn't decided yet when life starts (at conception or some time later). At his age that's a bit unbelievable. As I've said before, if he decides it's at conception, then he's pro life. Given that possibility, I don't want him. But perhaps a 50/50 toss on that issue is better than McCain's certainly. But Clinton's certainly is better still.

Ayers, Wright, Rezko, clinggate,and who know what else...a la McGovern, Dukakis is and Kerry, he will be painted as a wimpy, elite, unpatriotic out of touch snob.

Why the need to repeat that piece of mis-information, I don't know.

He is suddenly realizing his candidate is gettting less and less electable.  Now he's saying electability isn't a justification for voting for a candidate.

This is the exact problem I have with Obama. I'm at this point quite sceptical of his ability to win the general, given his radical baggage. But it's certainly possible he'll be able to do so, simply by riding the Democratic brand (a brand, I should say, he has had no hand in defining or promoting, but will only, instead, damage), which is still very strong and positive.

But even if he is elected, his baggage hardly goes away. It continues to define his image, and everything he does as President will be colored by it. He will have to be on the constant lookout not to do things that might appear to tap into that image. He will be, in short, damaged goods, and will hardly be in a position to make bold progressive steps. And of course the most perilous possibility is that the negative image he would bring into the Presidency would be built upon in any case to doom his Presidency over the four years of his first term, and bring ultimate great embarrassment to the Democratic cause and brand by losing the election in 2012, as Carter did in his time.

Atrios has indeed been cautious but he seems to look at everything through an economics lens. I don't recall seeing Atrios ever tell anyone else what to think.

You might agree with Ralph Nader (I do on some issues) but you don't vote for him because he's unelectable.

BTW - Obama is NOT electable.

Think "McGovern - Mondale - Dukakis"

Second, Obama has hosts and hordes of new best friends. Where are his old best friends? Where are his "Harvard Law School Buddies for Barack"? Where is his "I Fought For Social Justice on the Streets of Chicago with Barack" contingent? Where are his "We Made a Difference Together in the State Legislature of Illinois" allies? Where are the "Barack Was Critical in Developing and Gaining Support for (whatever) Bill" Senate backers?

I will not vote for someone just because more people like him than the person he is dissing.
I will not vote for someone who "clings" to a fatally flawed policy stance (as Obama does with Health Care). I will not vote for someone who demonstrates repeatedly that he is dependent upon the unmitigated adulation of a crowd in able to "perform brilliantly", and falls flat on his face in an adversarial situation.

But don't you have to wonder about his electability when it seems that the majority of Democrats are voting for Hillary Clinton?

Then add in that Obama and his supporters have insulted, dismissed and enraged large swathes of the Democratic base that just might not come home to the party if he wins the nomination.

And this is not a mere matter of style over substance.  Americans are trained to read between the political lines, because elected officials rarely do exactly what they say.

So politicians speak between those lines.

I think Obama might have wrapped this whole thing up months ago had he been more comfortable reaching out the traditional Democrats.

Conversely, I think Clinton wouldn't have the strength she does if she didn't speak so effectively to this group.

First, thanks and kudos to ALL the commenters upstream and down, who spelled out numerous details of policy/position differences between Obama and Hillary. That was instructive and a joy to read.

I would add that Paul Krugman has done a number of columns explaining how Hillary is better  overall, especially on the BIG 3: Social Security, Health-care, and the Economy.  

I trust that BTD will read respectfully, and closely, and modify his allegations about the lack of policy differences. I see now, how the 'no policy difference' meme has been an MSM mainstay, and it has worked to Obama's advantage: it has given him bogus cred on the issues and refocused the discussion onto the superficial crap about 'likability', 'charisma' that's been used to prop up the 'electability' meme.

Now, BTD: your claim for Obama's greater electability is based on your belief that he will continue to be a "media darling". This is not a convincing argument. It's not even an argument, it's an unsubstantiated opinion; since, to my knowledge, you have never explained why, or how, you think Obama will retain this status in the GE.

By my count, this is the fourth time I've asked you this question. You are under no obligation to respond (obviously). Personally, I don't know whether or not the media will continue to coddle Obama in the GE. But, apparently, you do. I'm betting that a lot of Clinton and Obama supporters would like to hear your reasoning on this.

Frankly, given your absence of support for Obama's long-haul 'media darling' viability, I've come to the conclusion that you don't believe it - you're playing devil's advocate or something.

Others have already responded with concrete examples, but here's my cut: Competence and a willingness to fight.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that Obama understands the issues as well as Hillary or - more important - is willing to fight for them.  Look at his career.  He gets into the Illinois legislature by using legal moves to get his opponents off the ballot. (Source: Chicago Tribune). His performance in the legislature? This is purely anecdotal (and therefore worth about as much as a plug nickel), but a couple I'm acquainted with who lived on campus in his district while he was in office never heard of him.  The bills his name was attached to once the Dems got control? Apparently all due to Emil Jones.

His "present" votes (not the ones that were part of a Party strategy but those he made on his own judgment - including one in which his was the only "present" vote), his emphasis on a "new" kind of politics, of working with Republicans, of building a "new" coalition; the fact that he got into the Senate because of a meltdown on the Rep. ticket - all tell me that he doesn't much care about policy and, politically, has pretty much had his career handed to him on a silver platter.

I happen to think Hillary has a better chance against McCain (not a slam dunk, just better) because in a debate she won't have to worry about offending his supporters, but he will have to worry about offending hers.

However, taking the electability argument off the table - on the assumption that you are using it only because there is no other good arguments - how about the fact that Hillary has demonstrated that she works hard, knows the issues cold (she isn't likely to sign a bill not knowing what's in it), has been in Washington and the Senate long enough to know where the bodies are buried.

For Obama: Youth vote, Democratic activist base enthusiasm (I think they got this wrong), AA's.

For Clinton: Older white women, white men in general