It is becomingly increasingly clear that the two remaining Democratic candidates for President are very weak and either of them will have difficulty winning the general election.  It isn't simply because of the ongoing contest either.  Both of them are poor nationwide candidates.  Look at this news running on TPM this morning:

"A new Rasmussen poll of New Jersey shows that this Northeastern state could be a toss-up this cycle, with John McCain edging both Democrats within the margin of error:

McCain (R) 46%, Obama (D) 45%
McCain (R) 45%, Clinton (D) 42%

It's interesting to note that Hillary Clinton has a home-region advantage here, but is actually performing behind Barack Obama against McCain — potentially putting a dent in the Clinton camp's argument about being more electable in Democratic base states."

I know that choosing a different candidate is unlikely for many reasons.  But at least when things go sour I can point out that someone saw the gathering storm and tried to warn others.  The fact is, it is becoming more and more obvious that we need a different candidate for the fall election. 

I hope all the "irrational exhuberance" of the past few months about making history and acting as though victory in November were a given is now wearing off enough for people to begin seeing Democrats are really in trouble as far as the White House is concerned and it's trouble of our own making (as usual).  It is far less about the sniping and bickering between Obama and Clinton than it is about their fundamental weaknesses as national candidates.  These weaknesses have been apparent all along but any sober discussion of such things has not been something anyone was interested in considering.  Most may remain uninterested in facing the reality that our two choices have massive vulnerabilities as candidates in November and that it is just as likely they will lose as it is that they will win if not more so.

If neither of these two can beat McCain in matchups in a place like New Jersey in March, what on earth makes anyone think either of them can beat him in November?  It defies reason why the entire nation should be held hostage by another Republican administration for four additional years simply because of the weirdness of our system of picking a nominee--a system that was even weirder this year given the idiotic scramble to vote early by so many states. 

Nothing prevents the party from turning to another candidate who can actually win the general election.  I'm tired of all the claims of both camps to some right to the nomination.  The only person who has a right to the nomination is the one who is chosen at the convention.  Most of the chatter in the media and in the blogosphere is about the two candidates, but in the end it really isn't and shouldn't be about them.  It's supposed to be about the welfare of the nation and the good of all our people.  It is not in the best interest of this country for the Democrats to lose the White House once again in a year they ought to win big given the current economic and political environment.

It appears that neither Obama nor Clinton have the ability to win the nomination outright as a result of primary and caucus voters' support as long as the nomination remains contested.  Each has the ability to prevent the other from obtaining the magic number.  Yes, Obama is the leader, but he hasn't won enough delegates to claim the nomination on his own.  He's just the survivor who is ahead but who hasn't clinched the nomination.  As I understand it, neither of them wins the nomination without the help of the Superdelegates.

I like Obama as a candidate for President better than Hillary and I don't like Hillary at all for President, but I doubt that either of these two middle of the road, corporate Democrats can win in November.  They have glaring weaknesses that become very apparent when you look at matchups in must win states like New Jersey.  If we have to fight to hold on to New Jersey we're in  big, big trouble folks.  At this stage of the game the Democrat ought to be comfortably ahead of the Republican choice in the Garden State. 

I really do hope I'm wrong about all this of course, but when I see numbers like this I cannot simply ignore them and be like Scarlett O'Hara and "think about that tomorrow."  How can anyone conclude that we enter the fall race in a good position when neither of our potential nominees at this point can do more than eek out a slight victory after 8 years of the most incompetent and corrupt administration in history?

It's time for a new candidate: one who can win in November.  I really have no one in mind, but we need to find someone else or we can look forward to another four years of tyranny, war, economic, political and social disaster.  Is sticking with either one of the current choices and losing the election worth that?  I don't think so.