The future of Iraq, the war on terror, and America’s response to global warming are all at stake in the 2008 presidential election. As such, electability should be the prime concern when picking a Democratic candidate, as the policy gap between Democrats and Republicans on these and other key issues is simply too great to risk yet another defeat.

Obama has several clear advantages here. First and foremost is the issue of the GOP base. John McCain’s maverick past, Giuliani’s social liberalism and Romney’s flip-flopping have deflated the GOP faithful, while the Democratic base has set turn out records in Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire. The GOP has no one to rally for, so the ONLY way the Democrats risk losing this key advantage is if they give them someone to rally against.

That someone is Hillary Clinton. Clinton has been the subject of GOP slander for almost two decades, leading to her having the highest negative rating of any of the major candidates at a whopping 47 percent (compared to Obama’s 20 percent). Obama’s message of unity has led him to outperform Clinton among independents in every primary and caucus so far, a fact that has spilled over to him out performing her against GOP challengers in the national polls.
The number tell a clear tale. Realclearpolitics.com reports that Obama does, on average, 5 points better against Giuliani, 7 points better against Huckabee and 9 points better against Romney. Think this is all irrelevant because either would easily win in November? Think again. McCain, fresh off South Carolina and New Hampshire primary victories and arguably the new GOP front runner, beats both Obama and Hillary, with Obama constantly doing 3-4 points better against him.

Even Democrats have begun to realize Clinton’s electability issues. Leaked memos from Democratic strategists argue that Hillary’s polarizing nature means she would lose key states like Missouri and Ohio, while conversely Obama delivers more independents, does almost as well as Clinton with woman, spurs greater African American turnout, and keeps the GOP base at home. All these factors make Obama the surer bet for victory in November.

Some have speculated America is not ready to elect an African-American. Whether America is ready for the nebulous “black president” is irrelevant; the numbers prove they are more ready for Barack Obama than they are for Hillary Clinton.

Not only would Obama be more likely to win, he would also be a more successful president. The fatal flaw of Hilldog’s “fight the GOP” pitch is that even if she wins, she will have done so by a very narrow margin, splitting the nation and making it functionally impossible to actually govern. In this environment of partisan venom, how can liberals expect someone who is demonized by even moderate Republicans, and who openly demonizes them back, to be able to create the bipartisan consensus need to get laws passed through a polarized Congress?
Obama’s message gives him more possibilities. Obama has a chance to not only win, but to win without antagonizing large portions of the right, thus warming the political climate. This is fundamentally different from the inevitable, frosty reception Clinton would not only initially receive, but would exacerbate over time with her divisive governing philosophy.

This basic differences in the nature of an Obama presidency trumps the overblown concerns about his lack of experience. Obama has more foreign policy experience than Reagan, Clinton, or GWB (former governors); he is four years older than Jack Kennedy when he got elected. He is attempting to fundamentally alter the culture of Washington, making his lack of Washington experience one of his greatest assets.

On the issues, as much as they pretend otherwise, they are virtually indistinguishable. The main difference between them is not substance, but style, and Democrats have to wonder Clinton would be too busy fighting the GOP to actually be able to effectively fight for the change America desperately needs.