there is no way McCain will win here, he insulted a lot of us with the bridge comment, and he doesn't support ethanol, MN and IA will be blue this year.

We've been nominating the conventional candidate for the past several decades and that has created an extremely harmful political culture. Unconventional is not bad. It means that a Democrat can be competitve in Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, the Dakotas, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas...It also means that the real change we need occurs. It won't just be a change in political party, but also in how our political culture operates.

I'd say that going with the unconventional in this case will be the most beneficial.

I think that Obama was probably the best choice to make. I totally disagree he was the "riskiest" choice. This year is set up to be a perfect storm for the Democrats, as long as we can stick together. The modus operandi is about change, though, which Senator Clinton doesn't represent well.

If she had run her campaign on that issue from the beginning, saying that hey, I know I represent the past and I've been known as a Washington insider, but I can recognize the need for change when I see it- and had dropped her inevitability schtick, then she'd probably have had this thing more than wrapped up by now. But she didn't. Alas. Now even the Republicans are trying to co-opt Obama's change mantra.

But here, this is for you- for positive karmas.

This is why I would have supported Clinton if the Republicans had come up with a weaker nominee. Anybody but McCain would be a cakewalk and Clinton would be a sure bet for a close, divisive but decisive victory.

McCain is likable enough to win, though, so Obama's better but more variable projection (imo) is a better choice.

and every other opinion piece on this site speaking to the "risk" posed by an Obama candidacy as our nominee, here's the question that turns this argument of yours on its head:

If "risk" is such a huge factor, then why the hell let the guy run in the first place? Just tell him "listen black man, this country isn't ready for you. You are risky. We can't chance it. Tough".

He is winning fair and square. No such thing as electability. You need to win to talk about your own electability. sheeesh.

And then there is the October surprise the republicans likely have waiting for Obama and Michelle.  The repugs will hold their "best" stuff until the nomination of Obama is secure (dont forget how strong their opposition research is)

I hope like heck that when/if the dems hand this to Obama, that he is absolutely up front with them about anything the repugs will have against him.  He cannot afford to lose the white house because, like Kerry, he doesn't take any attacks seriously.  And to enter into this race as the dem nominee without full disclosure on things that could cost him the election would be extremely selfish.

It is shaping up to be a realignment election. And to do that, you need a new kind of candidate. Sure, Obama is "riskier" because he's untraditional. And in any other year he wouldn't have made it to February in the primaries - especially against the former First Lady. But 2008 is no ordinary year.

Look at the three special elections in deep red districts. Look at the party ID numbers. Look at Bush's approval rating. Look at McCain's inability to establish any kind of lead as the Democrats bash each other.

Obama is perfectly positioned to take advantage of these dynamics.

Worse Economy, Worse war since Vietnam, worse Gas Prices since the 70's

The word you want is "worst." Bad -> Worse -> Worst.

independent minded John McCain

Ugh, no. He agrees with Bush on everything from the war, to social security, to who's a Nazi. Independent my ass.

you're right, it is very risky, borne out of the infamous political correctness our party has become so infamous far. I think Obama does have a good shot at winning this, but lets not forget, just because Congress will go Dem doesn't mean the White House will automatically. In 1896, McKinley beat Bryan by a healthy 51-47 margin in spite of his GOP's 50 seat loss that year in the house. Obama must pick the right running mate, a white Christian male, because if we are honest with ourselves, electing Barack Obama, with his middle name, is going to be a tough sell, if one looks at the history of race relations/dynamics in this country and the attitudes towards things in general.  However, he does have a chance, in this environment. I think this will be either a close Obama win, a close McCain win, or a McCain blowout.  If Obama wins, it will be 50-49, or even 49-49, he could lose like Kerry, or be Michael Dukakis all over again.

Last December, I might have agreed with you on all of that, all that analysis, all those predictions.

But then Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton.

That is a stunning upset.  First he outflanked her in fund-raising, something I never would have believed, all through 2006.  Then his ground game in Iowa registered so many new Democrats loyal to him that the pollsters underestimated the actual results.  I certainly underestimated him.  I never thought so many white voters in Iowa would vote for a black man.  I underestimated the people of Iowa, and, as it turned out, the whole country.

And I thought he was a goner after New Hampahsire, when it seemed like the Clinton Juggernaut finally was back in gear and had recovered its bearings.  But he survived through to Super Tuesday, and, again, I was pleasantly astonished to discover, at the end of the evening, that against my own pessimistic predictions, Obama had not just survived the day, but had actually EARNED MORE DELEGATES than Hillary.

But I still didn't think he could pull it off.  I was sure that Hillary would do well enough in the rest of February that she would be able to seal the deal with Texas and Ohio.  

But she didn't. In fact, Obama swept the next eleven contests of February, racking up devastating victory margins.  By the end of February, whether or not Hillary accepted it, whether or not the media was ready to recognize it, the contest was decided.  Obama was almost certain to come out with the most pledged delegates regardless of what happened in TX and OH, and everything else that followed.  The rest was like falling dominoes.

Then came the Reverend Wright controversy.  he batted it out of the ballpark with that speech.  Then Wright aggravated the situation with his speeches.  Obama dealt with it well enough to finish the job.  The polls showed McCain was more hurt by Bush than Obama by Wright.

So, I think this kind of analysis that you have written in your diary might have sounded well thought out last December, but not anymore.  Too much has happened since then for us to worry ourselves with doubts about Obama.  He's our guy, and we better commit and get on board and stop worrying.

The election is going to be a referendum on Obama. They will make Obama so toxic that down ticket dems like Childers will all be throwing him under the bus.

People don't trust him with national security and he has no economic appeal. He's losing in almost every demographic group in the country. The press hasn't been able to help him even in the democratic primaries.

I predict that Obama vs. McCain will result in a McCain presidency with pickups for downticket dems.

& Dick Morris? You've got to reassess the idealogical company you keep.

I do agree this Obama is the riskier bet, and I think the Clinton team has a legitimate point, that she should win Ohio and Florida, and could lose some upper Midwest states and still has the easier safer path to the Oval Office. But I really want to move beyond many policies of the last 25 years, and so I'm willing to take a bigger risk on the new guy.

I understand your point here, and although I don't agree with it your diary is generally a thoughtful one.  That being said, I think you have made a few problematic assumptions and statements.  

First, describing McCain as independent minded and thereby implying that we can't tie him to Bush - no matter who the nominee is - strikes me as pessimistic.  Especially since Obama will be able to draw far more clear contrasts with Bush/McCain policies.  Second, your statement that Obama's father and stepfather were Muslim is, at the very least, misleading.  Neither was a practicing muslim when they were associated with Obama.  I don't think you meant anything by that statement, but it doesn't strike me as completely accurate.

Also, I would agree with some of the other posts that have noted that it's not insignificant that Obama is poised to beat a candidate as formidable as Senator Clinton in the primary.  He's a far more seasoned, and effective presidential candidate today than he was when he declared for the race.  As such, I'm not at all sure that the same "vetting" concerns still apply.  Finally, I think you've overstated your "experience" argument.  Obama was a state legislator for a decade and has been in the Senate for four years.  GWB, in contrast, was the governor of a state where the governor doesn't actually have much power for six years.  I think Obama's experience is better in that comparison.  

You know what they say....

No risk, no reward?

Besides, going with a candidate with the highest socked-in negatives would not be a risk?

The republic friends I have (who are young and rich, basically) detest Sentator Clinton?

It's irrational and stupid, but it's true?

Most of them like Obama, and would consider voting for him?

Now, I live in probably the most NON-Appalachian part of the country there is, so I know the other argument?

Of course, I think, in the end, Hillary's "Hard Working White Rural" voters would split for McCain anyway....

You argue here that: "One thing every democrat can agree on is the Obama candidacy in November would without a doubt be the "Highest Risk" taken of any democratic candidate in our bench."

But many democrats obviously cannot agree on that.  In fact, Obama's candidacy benefited from an extreme ambivalence regarding Clinton's prospects.  There is, in the very least, a large segment (if not an outright majority, as I think the numbers show) that believes that Obama is a significantly lower risk.

Then you ask:

"Why take the risky candidate & gamble when we are heavily favored to win ? I don't know. Don't ask me why. Ask Nancy Pelosi &  Ted Kennedy."

Here you show that the first statement is patently false.  Two politically successful party leaders, as opposed to a group of pundits who have never been elected to anything, consider Obama the stronger candidate.  Unless you mean to imply that EMK and NP are suicidal gambling addicts or right-wing plants.  I don't think you really believe either of those things.  But that raises the possibility that your diary is a concerted effort at misdirection.  Either way, your argument gives the lie to your premise.

But even if we accept your faulty premise, wouldn't this year's political climate present exactly the opportunity to try something historic, to stop settling for conventional politicians who either fail or chronically disappoint us?  This is precisely the time to reach for that higher ceiling.  Of course, many democrats who cannot agree with your premise see Obama as the stronger candidate and the one with the higher ceiling.  At least admit we exist.