So who IS the most electable?

[PurityOfEssence]

Well folks, here we are. Many of us are holding our tongues more than usual for various reasons like disgust, fatigue and a desire to not heap more derision on either of the two people who will shortly be our standard-bearers, but the time is upon us, and I hope the right choice is made.

There's so little important difference between the two on policy and the character issue is a depressing one to even bring up. What matters now is who is more electable. Anyone who thinks we've got this election in the bag doesn't know anything about history or much about human nature, and now that the reactionaries have mustered the sense we can't to fall in behind their most electable candidate, the crossover issue is paramount.

So who is more electable? I simply don't know, and that's why I'm asking. For quite awhile, I was under the impression that Senator Clinton's unfavorables were the clincher, and that she only had a chance if things went horribly for the Republicans, but now I'm not so sure.

Here are a few points as grist, and I look forward to the input of the rest of you. Regardless of their failings, they're considerably better for mankind than McCain.

Clinton has name recognition, nostalgia for the "good old days", galvanized support from many women and men who want to see a woman as president, resoluteness, focus, a luster of survivability and serious moxie. Anyone who looks at her record can hardly see her as some bolshevik, and this SHOULD spur some moderates to come to their senses, regardless of the tarring as a liberal she's endured for seemingly forever. Yes, she's got HUGE unfavorables, but we can't forget that many women will vote for her simply because of her gender, and this will net some people who would NEVER vote Democratic otherwise. Whether this is enough to overcome the unfavorables (that have even reached 52% on occasion) is another question, but it's not to be sneezed at; women are a majority and they vote.

Obama has the novelty star appeal, didn't vote for the IWR, has carefully-cultivated crossover appeal, charisma and momentum. He doesn't have huge unfavorables, but does he really bring a new constituency to the party? Blacks vote Democratic, so he brings an increased turnout, but the turnout of white racists will also increase. The youth vote is the will-o-the-wisp of every cycle; will this be the time they finally show up? Beats me. History isn't very positive on this count. The religion hucksterism will certainly net him something, but much of the hard-shelled religious right has a pretty wide streak of racism about it, so what that benefit will be is also open to question. The racism issue is huge, just as the misogyny issue is for Senator Clinton. I personally believe that this country is grown up enough to elect a woman or a black person, but there's certainly going to be some resistance. Recently, however, I've been wondering about the race issue in a big way; what people say in public or do in a public forum like a caucus is often very different than what they do behind a curtain. This might explain New Hampshire and Florida. A recent Hispanic interviewee on NPR said that she didn't want to see a black president because "they'd be so full of themselves" if one of them was president. This stopped me in my tracks. Remember: Hispanic culture is actually rather conservative by nature, even though they've voted Democratic due to economic policy. That's also about 14% of the population...

So what do you all think? Not knowing who has the best chance at the moment, I'm voting for Edwards. It's simply that I want the most electable person and I just don't know who that is; thus, I'll cast a neutral vote.

What are your thoughts?