This isn't a blog about who I'm voting for on Tuesday or in November's general election. While people who know me also know that I wear my heart on my sleeve, I make a point not to use OnMilwaukee.com as a platform for advocating my personal politics.

No, this is a blog that Democrats, Republican and independents might agree upon: If the "superdelegates" usher in a Democratic candidate who doesn't represent the will of the voters -- and if that candidate then goes on to get trounced by Sen. John McCain -- the party should be dissolved. Whether you agree with their the platform or not, a party that can't find itself and can't represent its constituents doesn't deserve a place in the White House.

It's not a done deal, but Sen. Barack Obama is the candidate with the most momentum heading into this August's convention in Denver. If he's leading the delegate count and the popular vote, but doesn't have enough to be officially crowned his party's nominee, then watch out if the party elite picks Hillary Clinton. Mark my words: people will revolt and McCain will win in a landslide.

Similarly, should Clinton be in the lead, she needs to be the superdelegates' choice, though party brass also needs to ask itself what it's doing in promoting such an unelectable candidate.

Bottom line: The party that claims to echo the will of the people can't pick its leaders in back rooms and behind closed doors.

All of this hubbub, of course, is most puzzling, because it should be a cakewalk for the Democrats to take back the White House. While McCain is an ethical, heroic veteran with a history for bipartisan cooperation, he's also old (he'd be 72 at the inauguration), a little kooky and more conservative than most give him credit for. He's among the most die-hard hawks in the Senate. This is a guy who thinks the Iraq War was a great idea and is just fine with staying in Iraq for a very, very long time. Even though he was tortured for five and a half horrific years, he doesn't think that waterboarding is such a big deal. It's likely that McCain and George W. Bush are among the only Americans who feel that way anymore, and the Arizona senator is aligning himself on the specific issues that have earned the president an approval rate hovering right around 30 percent.

In other words, the Dems should've been able to nominate just about anyone with a pulse to win in 2008. But, just like in 2004 when they presented the goofy, sweaty, filthy rich and out-of-touch John Kerry, they feel the need to make it interesting.

Maybe they just like a challenge.

Obama, 46, is universally lauded as a dynamic speaker, but he has less political experience than many are comfortable with. Clinton makes a point when she says he's light on the details. Yes, Obama spent seven years in the Illinois State Senate and four in the U.S. Senate, but he's pretty "green" for a viable candidate. Of lesser importance, though worth mentioning, his middle name is Hussein, which means nothing at all (not that it matters, but he's a Christian not a Muslim) -- but it hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from blast e-mails that I've already heard, in person, resonating with some voters. And of course, he's an African American, which shouldn't be a big deal, I hope: people unwilling (read: racist) to elect a Black person wouldn't vote for a liberal Democrat, anyway. I think Obama could win the general election, but it might be very, very close. He is anything but a sure thing.

Clinton, on the other hand, is perhaps the most polarizing politician, not counting Bush, in decades. People either love her or hate her. There are no "undecideds" when talking about Hillary.

And that's because Democrats suck at public relations.

The G.O.P. has guys like the brilliantly evil Karl Rove pulling the strings. Democrats have ... who? The creepy James "Ragin' Cajun" Carville? Not so much anymore, but at least that dude got Hillary's husband elected twice.

The Republicans are the people that can get voters doubting whether Kerry really deserved those three purple hearts, while no one questioned where Bush was drinking margaritas during Vietnam (and for the record, I don't blame him: I would've been the first guy in line at the Vancouver coffee shops if I was drafted for that war).

The Republicans, for right or for wrong, have completely vilified Hillary, and no one has done anything to stop them. I saw her speak twice in the '90s, before she was running for anything, and she sounded nothing like the chirpy, condescending candidate she does now. Just like Al Gore did in 2000, when he ignored his own personal style and followed the "focus groups," Clinton's swagger on the campaign trail only exemplifies the persona that people despise. True lefties, too, recall her willingness to buy into the "Sept. 11 -- Saddam Hussein" link that Bush perpetuated. They don't plan on letting her forget that she approved this war as a senator.

Superdelegates aside, Hillary would get smoked by McCain if she winds up in a general election.

Still, the Democratic party must allow voters' voices to be heard. Its bizarre convention structure exists for a reason (though it completely backfired in 1984 by nominating Walter Mondale). But party elders must make sure not to send yet another message of ineptitude, rancor and infighting to the general public. They hold the unique key to losing the election before a single vote is even cast on Nov. 4.

The Democrats haven't shot themselves in the foot quite yet. But the gun's loaded and pointed at that donkey's hoof.

And if they screw this primary up, it's time for them to go, and to be replaced by a party that knows a thing or two about branding, media relations and image marketing. I don't know what that party looks like, but I'm guessing it calls itself "socially liberal and fiscally conservative."

Hopefully, it would at least have a unified message.

For if the Democrats can't figure out a way to win this election, they don't deserve another shot.