I know I'm also partially blinded by my own hopes and desires and wants.
But, why do people insist that Hillary is 'more able to get it done', or 'better able to get something accomplished' or 'more electable' ???
First, look in the campaign pudding. Who has 'got it done' in terms of building an organization and inspiring people to act, bringing people into the race, making things happen there? Because I can tell you I haven't had a single Hillary supporter evangelize me around town, but Obama supporters are everywhere.
Second, get what done? Presidents set direction, they can propose legislation, but it's up to Congress to enact new law and spend the money. That means someone who can motivate others, move them, someone who can create a million callers to key members of congress. No candidate is going to get into office and 'enact' their healthcare plan (except maybe McCain, but only because he doesn't have one), or create a national service academy, etc.
Third, electability. I don't like to speak it but I believe that a large chunk of Obama's vote has come from supply expansion of votes, i.e. new voters, and those voters are terribly unlikely to vote if the excitement of their candidate is gone. McCain can play for moderates all he wants but the further center he moves, the more rightwingers he loses. (I believe) Obama doesn't just say he will bring people together, he lives it, he acts that out as the purest expression of who he is, daily. McCain might win some conservative moderates but for every one of those, I bet Obama creates a new voter and he still wins a bunch of those moderates as well.
There's more but I have a headache. :-(