Mom, if you’re reading, sorry about the language. But I really feel like this is something that needs to be worded strongly. Because I just read this (emphasis mine)
On MSNBC last week, Mr. Rangel said of Mr. Obama: “He’s brilliant, he’s talented. He’s not tested, but who could be with the limited political experience?” He said that Democrats “should have as many exciting candidates up front as we can get, so we can find out who’s electable and who can best lead our country.”
Now, the premise there is good–I agree with the overall idea–but that word has got to go. As far as I can tell, the word “electability” was only invented recently. It was certainly used in full force by people attempting to convince those who might otherwise vote for Howard Dean to reconsider, and vote for someone they think other people will be willing to vote for.
The word has been used to encourage people to doubt their own instincts and second-guess their judgements. To vote, even in the primary, not for someone they could be excited about working for, but for the one who pundits (those people who get paid no matter who wins) say will be acceptable to other people.
The time to nip this thing in the bud is now. Stop using that word! Talk about our dreams and our ideals, bringing people together, what’s good for America and the world…there are plenty of other ways to talk about the kind of candidate we need. But the word “electability” needs to go away, and it needs to go away now.
