Hillary Clinton's final pitch is pretty much all about electability. It does seem to be borne out by the evidence that she's better positioned in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (though Obama narrowly edges McCain in Ohio and beats him soundly in PA). In any event, the contest certainly looks winnable for either candidate.
Still, I don't find Clinton's arguments all that persuasive. For one thing, she is more popular with the more culturally conservative working class voters in red-leaning states like Ohio, but that has largely got to be because Fox News and the right wing media has been going very easy on her while making a fuss about Barack Obama misremembering which Nazi concentration camp his great uncle liberated. Fox News desperately wants Clinton to win the nomination, and basically parrots her talking points. Why, because they think she'd be easier to beat?
No. Because Clinton's new working class support will splinter pretty quickly if she actually gets the nomination. Because then Fox will start talking about Whitewater and impeachment around the clock. Because then the right wing will try to tear her down again. They've been trying their damnedest to do it to Obama. Clinton's potemkin electability will evaporate in short order if she gets the nomination, and she'll still likely lose Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico--states Obama is poised to win, which in conjunction with the Kerry states will win Obama the White House. And which of the two candidates is more likely to change the way people think about them, Clinton or Obama? The immensely talented, charismatic upstart or the polarizing old battle horse? This is not to diminish Clinton's intelligence or her other gifts, but she was born to be a behind-the-scenes type, and she's gotten as far as she's gotten by basically adopting blunt identity politics and Nixon's silent majority approach within the Democratic primaries to mask her own lack of charisma.
To answer my initial question: I really hope not.
