Electability is a non-issue. So the question begs: Which candidate has the experience and the resources and the staff to best resolve all of the complicated issues we will deal with for the next 16 years - because my money says the Democrats will own the White House for at least that long.

And I’m still voting for Hillary Clinton.

And Clinton will more than likely win New York. But the general election comes down to who is going to be able to beat the Republicans who are still reeling from their congressional losses?

Who can get not only the undecided middle to believe in America’s potential again, but also draw support from many of the Republicans dissatisfied with the extreme right direction their party has taken in the last few years?

Th election is about who can take us, all of us, into a progressive direction.

Is it Obama or the Clintons?

News reports out of Idaho, one of the reddest states in the union, Obama got 14,000 people to attend one rally. Most were independents. At the next rally he drew over 20,000.

Clinton draws a few thousand at rallies in favorable states.

What conclusion should we reach about who can beat McCain?

You’re right that Democrats will probably expand control of Congress. Dems will gain in the House, big time, so even a few Blue Dog defections won’t derail a Democratic President’s agenda.

The issue is the Senate, where it takes 60 votes to get something done. Democrats probably won’t get to 60, and if we do, there are still problems with folks like Lieberman. So the question is whether Obama can fracture off a few moderate Republicans there and work with them to pass an agenda that is generally in line with the program he’s promoting on the stump. I think his history in Illinois shows he can.

I can’t articulate this as well as the Prospect article here:

http://www.prospect.org//cs/articles;jsessionid=abjCqbnRBPHastQOjD?article=the_theory_of_change_primary

Money quote:

The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won’t be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that’s not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists — it’s a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It’s how you deal with people with intractable demands — put ‘em on a committee. Then define the committee’s mission your way.

Could HIllary do this? Absolutely. But I think Obama’s experience and temprament are more suited to the task.

Question - what do you mean by this?

We’ve all been watching, with frustration, as the Democratic Congress is continually thwarted in its efforts to end the war in Iraq, to bring health care to more children, and to enact a sensible energy policy. We know that there are a core set of issues where the majority of the country and our party are in agreement. Yet Republicans have been able to stop Democrats in their tracks, and our country is the worse for it.

I think Obama can change this,

The Dems will retain and likely expand control of Congress. I mean he will change the current circumstances only because a Dem will be President. I get the can working across the aisle buildiong coalitions point later on what point am I missing or am I hung up on writing style?

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=274863

An AP fact check agrees:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/

The votes that were part of the original Clinton spin piece were pro-choice votes. Obama’s got a 100% pro-choice rating in Illinois. There’s no real issue here.