Jerome Armstrong wrote an interesting article entitled Edwards and the electability question.  Jerome does not take a definitive position on this issue but seem to suggest that John Edwards "electability" would be a good strategic move for the Edwards campaign.  I disagree and I think it opens up a much broader issue of what the word actually means.

If we were to go with the strict dictionary definiton of the term

e·lect·a·ble [i-lek-tuh-buhl]
-adjective

capable of, or having a reasonable chance of, being elected, as to public office.

Source:  Dictionary.com

then by definition, Edwards would be no more electable in the general election than Clinton or Obama and most polling seems to agree with this conclusion.  National head-to-head polls indicate that all top three democratic candidates would do good in a general election against the top three republican candidates (see RealClearPolitics.com - Election 2008 National Head-to-Head Polls).  Now the Edwards camp, according to Jerome Armstrong, in a polling memo made the case that Edwards can compete in more states than either Obama or Clinton based on two public polls, SurveyUSA and Ramussen Reports.  Now I question the judgment of using just these two polls to argue for southern electability.  Furthermore, if you look at the SUSA state by state poll against Giuliani, Edwards only does marginally better than Clinton or Obama.  Additionally, Hillary Clinton holds a large lead in most Northern and Western states where Edwards seems to even have a hard time competing.

Politically knowledgeable bloggers (i.e. the MyDD community) tend to look at all these polls with a grain of salt.  Polls are useful but are far from the most accurate predictor of general election success.  As a matter of fact, both Ramussen and SurveyUSA failed to project the 2004 winner on a state by state basis and was ranked lower than Mason-Dixon in accuracy as determined by the Free Republic.  So neither of these polls are guaranteed measures and questionable at best in determining "electability."

During the 2004 Democratic primary, Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman dominated the polls with frontrunner status and yet neither came close to winning the nomination.  John Kerry did win the nomination on the perception that he was the most electable from an experience standpoint and we all know the horrible conclusion to that decision.

The most concerning aspect to this whole debate is the notion that any democrat can win a large number of states in the South.  This remains to be seen since to date, democratic presidential candidates have done poorly in the south as evidenced by the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004 and in the states that Kerry did win Hillary seems to be holding larger margins than Edwards or Obama.

So I am going to stick my neck out on a limb here and suggest that John Edwards may be gearing his campaign up to play a subtle race/gender card strategy.  I hope this is not the case but the fact remains that America has never elected a woman or a black man.  Lynn Sweet, as Jerome Armstrong pointed out, noted in Edwards speech at AFSCME meeting:

Edwards launched into what amounted to a general election argument against Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama: that they are not electable and can't get votes in certain parts of the nation. He didn't use their names, but that's who he was aiming at when he said "we need a candidate for president" who "can go anywhere in America."

This sounds eerily like he is suggesting that a woman or black man leading the democratic ticket is unelectable.  Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post wrote an identically titled blog to Jerome Armstrong called Edwards and the Electability Question.  In his blog he writes his take on the issue which seems to be in line with my suspicions:

The truth is that Edwards's "electability" argument is based more on where he's from and what he sounds like when he talks than on his policy proposals. He was born in South Carolina, won a Senate seat in North Carolina and his accent is pure south.

. . . It's also worth noting inherent in all of these arguments is the fact that Edwards is the only white male among the top three Democrats. Edwards's campaign vehemently denies that his call to consider which candidate is the most electable has anything to do with Hillary Clinton's gender or Barack Obama's race. But the fact remains that America has never elected a woman or an African American to the White House. It's not an issue any candidate will bring up in the course of the contest, but it would be naive to assume it has no role in at least some voters' minds as they make their choice on which candidate to support in the upcoming caucuses and primaries.

Ultimately, I think it is a poor argument and should be banned by the progressive community to use "electability" in determining how to vote.  I think John Edwards has a great chance at winning the democratic nomination and the general election but, in my opinion, it has very little to do with his race or this so called "electability".  Media Matters says it all in the following article:

If there's a more pointless word in political journalism than "authentic," it must be "electable."

. . . Constantly searching for reasons why Democrats can't win, why they are "unelectable," may be a comfortable old habit. But it doesn't serve the public well, and it makes the media who participate in it look increasingly silly.

It has everything to do with his campaign, how it is run and his platform.  There are pros and cons to all of the top three candidates and we will continue to weigh them out over the course of the primaries.  However, electability should not be a factor insofar as race, gender or geographical birthplace is concerned.  It has never been a good indicator in the past and should not be given any significant weight now and I am strongly against John Edwards using this line of reasoning.

As Obama eloquently pointed out during his CBS 60 minutes interview in regard to the African American voting block:

I think there is the assumption on the part of some commentators that somehow the black community is so unsophisticated that the minute you put an African-American face up on the screen that they automatically say, "that's our guy."  A black candidate has to earn black votes the same way he has to earn white votes and that's exactly how it should be.

In conclusion, I am going to take those same words and apply it to the assumption in the progressive blogosphere that the democratic community, which is predominantly white, should embrace John Edwards because he is perceived to be the most "electable" (i.e. code word for the only white southern male in the top tier).  Ultimately, a white southern male candidate has to earn our support the same way a black man or white woman will have to.  The nomination will be determined by a culmination of factors based on polls, fundraising, interest, excitement, likeability, experience, plans, platform, and maybe physical traits (for those who find that matters).  There has been fluctuation between the three as to who does the best in general election match ups and I, for one, this far out base my opinion on the candidate's platform as I am certain that we all do.

Let us do away with this "electability" thing and urge John Edwards to do the same. As Bill Clinton pointed out during the '92 debates, "it is insane to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result."