I heard something on Hardball tonight that struck me. (By way of disclaimer, I don’t watch Hardball that much, but I tend to turn on MSNBC as I change out of my work clothes). Anyway, some beltway pundit or another was talking about how maybe Democratic primary voters would vote for Hillary Clinton even though they didn’t really like her because she might be perceived as “the most electable.” If primary voters voted for her it would show how much Democrats really want the White House.

My sense is that this completely misreads the mood of the national electorate this year. I could be wrong – I’m no professional pundit (but that probably increases my likelihood for accurate predictions.) I get the sense that the Democrats can elect anyone within reason this year. I think any Republican candidate (except for perhaps Ron Paul who almost certainly won’t get the GOP nomination) will have the Bush albatross so firmly wrapped around their neck that they can’t win. This year, the Democratic nomination is kind of like playing for the AFC Championship. It’s not guaranteed, but the winner has to be a prohibitive favorite to win the Super Bowl.

Now that I’ve stumbled onto the NFL metaphor, I’ll push it along for awhile. Hillary is kind of like the New England Patriots of the field – she has some gaudy stats, but she’s tainted with a lot of big money, a hint of dynasty, and a sketchy explanation for her war vote. At the end of the season, do you really want her wearing the ring?

Democrats should just forget about perceived electability this year. For starters, it doesn’t work. They picked Kerry in 2004 because they thought he was more electable. What that seemed to translate to was an overly cautious approach and an unwillingness to get pinned down on a position. This season, I figure Democrats should vote for a candidate whose policies they like best. From there, I think the electability will take care of itself. Now, I just have to figure out whether Obama is the Colts and Edwards is the Steelers, or vice versa.

And, for what it’s worth, Todd Beeton at MyDD has an interesting post entitled “If the Caucus were held tonight.” John Edwards is usually an afterthought in any Democratic primary discussion. But, there is a narrative going around that Edwards would probably win the Iowa Caucuses if they were held right now because he supposedly has a superior organization and, importantly for this process, he is a lot of people’s second choice. In the Iowa caucus system, if a candidate doesn’t get above a certain threshold of support, that candidate’s supporters go to their second choice among the remaining candidates.

One poll shows the likely-caucus goers as having second choice preferences as follows: Edwards 22.7, Obama 20.1, Clinton 13.8. I think Hillary is going to face real problems once it becomes clear that Obama or Edwards is more viable than the other. Supporters of the less successful of the two will mostly peel off for the other and mostly not go over into the Clinton camp. That’s my impression anyway.

At Clinton campaign offices in Rochester, New Hampshire, a man wearing what looks to be a bomb has taken two volunteers as hostages.

WNBC-TV in New York quoted an unidentified law enforcement source as saying the man wanted to speak with Clinton.

Clinton, who was in Washington, D.C., canceled a speaking engagement and was meeting with staffers.

She did not respond publicly to the reported demands, but her campaign issued this statement: “We are in close contact with state and local authorities and are acting at their direction. We will release additional details as appropriate.”

As always, Hunter is a great read.

On the hit list:
1. Poorly sourced smears against Obama flogged by the Washington Post.
2. Rove on Bush & Iraq: The Democrats made him do it.
3. Rudy and the New York City paid car and police driver for his mistress.
4. Hillary Clinton thinks Colin “these are facts, not assertions” Powell is a guy worth listening to.
5. Joe Klein continues to walk the earth unraped by drunken bears, thus proving there is no God.
6. A gay general got to ask the Republican candidates questions. The horror!

Hunter really burns bright on the screwed up notions of “moderation” and “bipartisan reasonableness” that would have pundits like David Broder require a Democratic administration to temper an otherwise sensible policy with “clusterfuckery” in the name of getting along; that would require the embrace of a guy like Colin Powell just because he has been deemed a reasonable guy even though he is the kind of guy who would go to the U.N. and tell the assembly that Hussein’s WMDs were a stone cold fact known “without a doubt.”

I probably drag this one out too often, but insisting on moderation when it doesn’t make sense always reminds me of William Lloyd Garrison writing on the subject of abolitionism and slavery in the inaugural edition of his newspaper, The Liberator:

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.