If a "polarizing" candidate has "the highest unfavorable rating for any presidential nominee in recent history," how does that enhance electability?

In all the media frenzy about the Pennsylvania primary, the Clinton campaign keeps raising the issue of "electability" for the general election. That is forcing an examination of her own electablity issues. And, there are plenty. Elizabeth Drew put it quite succinctly:

Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket – i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.

Hard to argue with that.

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, did an interview with National Journal that pretty much blows away Clinton's electability argument.

Q: Well, you've talked here about why he is electable. Obviously, the Clinton campaign and Clinton herself are making strong arguments about why he is not electable, pointing to this base question that I just asked you, pointing to the fact that she's done better in the big states. What kinds of arguments are you going to be making to superdelegates about her electability?

Plouffe: Well, let me just on the big state question -- you know, they point to California, New York, Massachusetts. We are going to carry those states comfortably. Yes, she did win Ohio and Pennsylvania in the primary. If you look at polling matchups of McCain versus Obama and Clinton in Pennsylvania, we perform roughly equal. We've won a lot of big battleground states -- Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington state, Iowa, Virginia. North Carolina, by the way, is going to be a big battleground state in 12 days, so I guess by their definition they need to win there. So this is kind of a ridiculous argument that, you know, they are trying to latch on to.

I mean, I think her electability issues are the following: she's got a high unfavorable rating. It would be the highest unfavorable rating for any presidential nominee in recent history. Fairly or not, the majority of voters don't trust Senator Clinton. Those two points are related, obviously: her unfavorable rating, and the sense that voters do not find her honest or trustworthy. And I do think she has limited appeal with independent voters. A Democratic nominee has to be competitive with independent voters. Ideally you'd win them. John McCain has unique appeal with independent voters. Senator Clinton has difficulty matching up with him with independent voters. She's got less appeal to Republicans, and I also think she's not going to create the kind of turnout that we will in the African-American community and with all voters under 40.

So I think she's got real limited range here, and we think that we will be just as strong as she will be in the core battleground states like Pennsylvania, like Ohio. But the question is, in Iowa, in Wisconsin, in New Mexico, in Nevada -- these are states that have always been very close, that a Democratic nominee has to carry. And we're doing much better than she is against John McCain.

Those are some pretty intense electability issues to overcome. So, all the pundits who are drooling over Hillary's win in Pennsylvania should take a deep breath. Most superdelegates know what they'll be getting from a Clinton candidacy. That's why many superdelegates didn't jump on the Clinton bandwagon despite the enormous pressure.