We know the superdelegates will have the final say in who gets the nomination, and I respect the argument that the candidate most likely to defeat McCain in November is the most important factor in that decision. With that in mind, the Clinton campaign must be made to address and answer the following points and questions.   

• Clinton keeps arguing that she is more electable because she won certain big states, but those states will go to the Democratic candidate, regardless.  How do her victories in New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey or Pennsylvania increase her electability over Obama?

• Rather, the candidate best able to attract swing and cross-over voters is the one more likely to win in November.  What case can Clinton make for attracting these voters when Obama seems to have much more to offer in this area? 

• Along the same lines, what about all the Republicans who hate her with a burning passion (however irrational or misogynist they may be)?  Which Democratic candidate will do the best job, by far, of rallying the Republican base to vote for McCain?

• For the last few months she has insulted and alienated Obama's supporters -- what is her plan to win their support?   
  
• What about all the young people—white, black, asian, latino--who have previously felt disenfranchised or too cynical to vote, who have been inspired to participate in this election because of him.  How will Clinton win these voters by insulting and trashing her opponent, as she has done continuously since late February?

• What about Obama’s ability to attract such a large number of contributors and raise so much more money than Clinton can?  How can we win in November with such a poorly-managed and poorly-funded campaign?  What does poor campaign management say about the candidate’s ability to manage the office of the President?

• Clinton ’s website now claims she has received more total votes than Obama, noting that this figure includes Florida and Michigan.  This is both false and misleading.  She only leads if you include both states AND exclude the caucus states.

• It is impossible to give any validity to a vote in a state where the leading candidate’s name was not on the ballot.   How can the Clinton campaign justify counting Michigan?  What is democratic, what is even constitutional about that? 

• Clinton’s website tally discounts the caucus state results altogether. If you give any recognition and respect to the citizens who participated in the caucuses, Obama’s majority only grows.  Again, a large group of Democratic voters have been dismissed as irrelevant by her campaign.  How does such behavior make her more electable?

• The simple reality Clinton’s campaign refuses to acknowledge is that more of the people who participated in the Democratic primary have chosen Obama over Clinton, even when you include the Republicans who voted for Clinton only to prolong our primary. 

• How can Clinton argue for electability in the general when she can’t even attract a majority of Democratic voters?

• Finally, Obama thanks Clinton for thoroughly vetting him, better preparing him for attack by the Republicans.  Obama has not given Clinton the same treatment -- all those skeletons in her closet, and they have been politely overlooked throughout this primary. 

• What happens when the Republicans roll out the dirt?  Travel-gate, Whitewater, Cattle futures, Clinton pardons, Monica, ‘lost’ documents, Peter Paul lawsuit.   And now add sniper fire fairytales and Clinton’s recent dangerously un-presidential talk of obliterating another country with nuclear weapons. 

There is no doubt that the superdelegates are sharing these same concerns and are deeply troubled by Clinton’s continued effort to take the nomination away from the candidate most Democrats and many Independents and even some Republicans support.