What a night for Hillary Clinton! Her nearly ten-point victory in Pennsylvania Tuesday night over Barack Hussein Obama put her back in the race, and in no small way. Make no mistake about it: this was a blowout. The polls were predicting a five- or six-point margin, and Obama spent nearly three times as much as Clinton did in the Keystone State. She still massacred him by a near double-digit lead. This is not only bad news for Obama, but also for the Democratic Party and its leaders.

By winning Pennsylvania, Clinton has called into question one of the most hailed qualities brought up about Barack Obama: his ability to unite. Obama still cannot beat her; Tuesday night wasn’t even close! My question to Obama supporters is this: How do you expect a man to unite the entire country when, after three months of primaries and nearly a year of campaigning, he can’t even unite his own party? Yes, he has a slight delegate majority, but in the popular vote that includes Michigan and Florida, he has virtually no lead. The magic that got him through several major primaries and caucuses is gone: we don’t hear the “change, hope, future” mantra like we used to.

His electability is also becoming a serious question that the superdelegates have to address. And that is what matters: the superdelegates. Neither of these candidates can get the 2025 delegates needed to secure the nomination. If you look at the general election, Clinton actually has the better chances. Out of the past seven presidents, two have been Democrats. Both have been from the south, and have thus won the south. But now, as in 2000 and 2004, it will be swing states that decide who gets the majority of electoral votes. These states are Ohio, Florida, and Michigan. Clinton is the one who can beat McCain here, not Obama. They are classic Clinton demographic, just like Pennsylvania: mostly white, older populations, lower incomes. She gets 60+% of each of these groups virtually every time. Obama did well in states that are going to go Republican in November anyway.

The debate in Philadelphia last Wednesday night didn’t help Obama much either. The majestic image of strength, hope, and unity just fell apart when his script got taken away. He can barely string two words together without an “umm” or “uhh,” and clearly has no idea what the capital gains tax is or how it works. His socialism was blatant when he claimed that he would raise taxes on the rich not for economic gains but for the sake of “fairness.” He wouldn’t take a stand on the D.C. gun ban, even after he claimed that people in middle America “cling to guns, religion, and antipathy towards those different from themselves” because of their economic frustrations. (In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 60% of gun owners and Church goers.)

At the same debate, Clinton had her act together. Her clear, concise answers to many of the economic questions made Barack look incompetent and foolish. She also didn’t stutter, and her references to the economic prosperity of the 1990s (of which she wishes to appear involved with) reminded people of the great times of that decade. It is a winning strategy for her: Elect another Clinton for another 8 years of economic success!

Clinton’s campaign has also been extremely successful in the recent weeks. While the debate was I think a stroke of luck (way to go Charlie Gibson for holding him accountable to the facts about taxes), Clinton is the one who has torn Obama off the pedestal that he was on. She is attacking him relentlessly on his inexperience and lack of substance. Her husband is saying that his victory in South Carolina was the same as Jesse Jackson’s in the 1980s. Gerry Ferraro is saying that he is only successful because he’s black. And they will not apologize for anything they are saying! They’re tougher on Obama than McCain has been. And how does Obama respond? He whines about negativity. He is being wimpy and more of a woman than Clinton ever was. As I mentioned above: the magic is gone.

Compared to McCain, however, I believe both of them will be greatly disadvantaged. While McCain isn’t the best of speakers, he’ll look fine in a debate setting. When he lays out the facts of his economic plan that have proven plans to help the economy and lower gas prices, he will pick up a lot of support. He will garner a huge number of center and even center-left voters, leaving either Democrat in the dust.

I do not know which candidate will be nominated. But it is unquestionable that Clinton is the more electable than Obama in the general contest. If the superdelegates are smart, they’ll nominate her. But as evidenced by the past thirty years, Democrats don’t know how to nominate a candidate. So in conclusion, while it is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain stem that Clinton has a better chance than the moronic pretty-boy Obama, the Democrats still may not make that smart decision. And if they don’t, McCain is assured a seat in that White House on January 21, 2009.