I don't like these shoes, but the popular kids will.

There's a really interesting article up on Slate right now about the concept of electability and the Democratic candidates. Kinsley basically argues that the obsession with a candidate's "electability" means Democrats are voting for the candidate they imagine appeals to the sometimes-Republican swing voters and not the candidates that they believe would make the best President.
Clearly the Democratic mantra of this election, "Get Bush Out at all Costs," forces electability to the fore-front, as it makes electability, as opposed to ideas, principles, charm, the ultimate quality voters, and the party, is looking for.
But it's a bogus quality. Just think about the recent primary season: John Kerry successfully convinces people that he is more "electable" than Howard Dean. He wins, "proving" that he is more electable. But had Iowans voted for the "unelectable" Dean instead, because they might actually prefer him, well who starts to look electable then, by virtue of being elected?
The emphasis on electability signifies an enormous insecurity among Democrats about the chances that Americans would ever elect someone running on a legit Democratic platform (and why Dean vs Bush was seen as more of a lost cause than Kerry vs Bush). But Republicans, of whom there are, allegedly, less registered voters, do it all the time. We'd rather court voters on the fence, (who want what? Fiscal conservatism, which at this point anyone running has a better claim to than Bush, or social conservatism, which Bush will always have a better claim to) then try to win an election with a candidate we believed in.
And who are these voters we're trying to cater our candidate to? If we're voting in the primary, and therefore already voting Democrats, does that mean our vote is already counted and therefore irrelevant? And, are we, by prioritizing electability, responsible for rendering our opinion irrelevant compared to the swing voter's?