One of the criteria the American people use to judge a presidential candidate is “likability” – a nebulous and indefinable attribute to be sure. Experts tell us that part of the “likability” question is whether the voter wants this guy (or woman) coming into their homes every damn day for the next 8 years via television.

Obviously, this attribute has not played a huge role in determining how people vote – otherwise people would have chosen Hubert Humphrey’s “Happy Warrior” exterior over Nixon’s dourness and certainly Gerald Ford’s steadiness over Carter’s nauseating sanctimony.

But are we really ready to spend the next 8 years with a whiner like Obama?

Chomping down on sausage and waffles at Glider’s Diner in Scranton today, with his Pennsylvania BFF (Sen. Bob Casey) at his side, Obama avoided commenting on former President Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas.

Asked by a reporter if he had heard that Carter reported a positive outcome from the meeting, Obama looked sternly at the reporter in question and said, “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”

Asked again by the reporter, Obama bit—not at the question but into a butter covered bite of Glider’s specialty over-size Belgian waffles. With a wink this time he said, “Just let me eat my waffle.”

Obama whines about the unfairness of the Philadelphia debate. He whines about Hillary’s attack ads. He whines about an intrusive press (he hasn’t had a press conference in 10 days). He famously whined after a presser about Rezko “C’mon guys. I answered 8 questions already.”

He whines when he’s forced to explain his associations with people like Jeremiah Wright, Rezko, or William Ayers. He whines when the press or other candidates call him out on his lies and exaggerations. And now he has backed up his whines by pulling out of the North Carolina debate. I guess when the going gets tough…the whiners skedaddle.

Then again, perhaps Obama is doing us a favor by running away from another grilling like he received in Philadelphia. He has spared us having to sit in front of the TV and wonder what embarrassing question Katy Couric would be asking next as CBS was scheduled to broadcast the debate. Perky Katy would probably not have asked Hillary this:

Tonight, in an interview with ABC, she took a question on an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

The move from vague threats to a specific commitment—and the vocabulary seems to suggest nuclear retaliation, if not to actually say that—seems like a substantive change in the country’s approach to the Middle East.

UPDATE: Clinton aide Howard Wolfson says she wasn’t referring to, or suggesting, nuclear weapons.

One can almost imagine Perky Katy screwing up her cutsie pie face and wrinkling her button nose in disgust that we would consider being so beastly to the cutthroats in Tehran – even after they have deposited a nuclear love note on Israeli soil.

It doesn’t matter because Iran won’t attack Israel – with nukes anyway. But it sure is interesting that Hillary feels it necessary to out-gonad Obama which is admittedly a relatively easy task for the former First Lady, she being born with an extra set. Maybe she could loan our metrosexual messiah one of hers – it just may stop his incessant whining.

This actually would be a fantastic general election campaign strategy for McCain – getting Obama to whine about everything – since there are probably going to be more of these “problem associations” to come out in the months ahead:

Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer, was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond’s team promised that he could “help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army” because Mr. Diamond “has been very active with Senator McCain,” a partner said in a deposition.

McCain, of course, has the same problem Obama has; he sets himself up as a different kind of politician who is above mucking around in the political sewers with special interests while carrying on business as usual when it comes to his “special friends.” In the larger scheme of things, this favor for Diamond is hardly a mortal sin. But as an example of campaign hypocrisy? Guilty as charged, Senator.

The campaign claims an aide handled the army base matter under the rubric of “constituent services.” Kevin Drum does the math:

Indeed. A “constituent matter.” McCain’s pal managed to snag this prime coastal land — complete with special water rights — for $250,000 and then sell it two years later for $30 million. That’s some serious constituent service.

Again, this is hardly unusual by Washington standards. But if I were McCain, I’d start to downplay the whole “Straight Talk Express” thing starting now.

Thankfully from McCain’s point of view, Obama won’t be able to make too much of the Republican’s associations because once he raises the subject, Rezko/Wright/Ayers will jump up and bite him on his less than ample behind.

But that is in the future. Today, Pennsylvania Democrats have the opportunity to end this marathon campaign simply by bowing to the inevitable and voting for Obama. Why they probably won’t do that is a mystery to me. Think of how the Democrats have been tearing at each other since shortly before the Texas and Ohio primaries more than 6 weeks ago. Now imagine what they’ll be doing to each other 6 weeks from now when the campaign season ends. It will be the Hatfields and McCoys on steroids with the only thing stopping open warfare is the two candidates firm belief that the second amendment doesn’t exist.

If white voters give Hillary the margins that some pollsters are saying – 57%-60% – superdelegates will be placed in the impossible position of having to make a choice between a candidate that can’t win a majority of Democratic delegates and one that will find it almost impossible to win a majority of general election voters.

That hellish choice can be avoided if Obama can get close enough in Pennsylvania today to deny Clinton her major “electability” argument. But most of the polls say that Democrats just aren’t willing to accept Obama quite yet. And the race, such as it is, will go on.