Great, great point by Drum.   Don't worry guys- a bitter fight won't make us lose by a lot, just a little.  

For what it is worth, I don't know if this will kill the Dems for sure- I think it will, but it doesn't have to- but Drum's example is just ridiculous.

I hope, in time,  you'll realize how dumb this post was.

Yeah, '68 wasn't so bad. Riots, assassinations, and then at the end, Nixon!

Please never try to reassure me again.

This seems right.  John McCain still has one very big hurdle to surmount come November: He's a Republican, and George W. Bush is still president.

What if Hill and Barack call a truce by saying that whoever wins the delegate count gets to be P, and whoever takes second gets to be VP, forcing the campaigns to be civil.  Hill has already made gestures in that direction . . .

These past few months have made me question my lifelong allegiance to the Democratic Party. If we don't have the stomach for this very civil and benign campaign, how will we even approach the extraordinary hurdles we face in the next few years (Iraq, Russia, the recession)? I say to all the kvetching Obama supporters: buck up! The best candidate will emerge from this process and he or she will do so stronger because of the process. Get over Florida and get over John Kerry. We have two historically brilliant candidates. We have outraised the Republican Party by an order of magnitude. There is unprecedented excitement and engagement in the process on our side. Voter turnouts are at an all time high. Meanwhile, the Republicans are dysthymic. Their candidate is tired; he is hated by the base of their party; and he has hitched his entire ride to the outcome in Iraq. As a close friend told me recently, the Democrats could run Crusty the Clown and beat McCain in November. Why don’t we all celebrate this wonderful process called Democracy and have a little faith that the process will do what it is supposed to do in determining the eventual and best nominee? I, for one, have had enough of the neurotic, self-indulgent, sky is falling, woe is me, Woody Allen bullshit.

Let's see, it took the GOP ten ballots and a smoke-filled room to nominate Harding in 1920.  And in 1924 it took the Dems 103 ballots and some fistfights.  So, not to worry, the Dems may yet come out with another Harding or Davis.

How quickly could Florida and Michigan run their primaries?  It would be better to let them vote than to leave this to superdelegates.  But they would have to move quickly or this campaign will go long enough to do real damage.

Neil

In 1984 Hart and Mondale battled up until the convention and superdelegates put Mondale over the top. The party was as united against Reagan as it could possibly be. There was also the unique event of a woman on the national ticket. At the time I am sure many Democrats decided to sit back and enjoy the historic ride then too.

So chill out everybody, we all know how successful Mondale was, he did win Minnesota after all.

Democrats are delusional if they think they can paint McCain as being an extension of Bush. The guy was arguably the first victim of Bush's assault on America. With Hillary "Mondale" Clinton at the top of the ticket, and that exciting gov. what's his name of Ohio as the VP, they might even win Ohio (and one or two other states).

I love 1968 being the great example, being that since that time Democrats have controlled the White House 12 out of 40 years, so what is another 4 years.

The best thing about America is, if you have enough money to get by, you can pretend that world is much better than it is.

I just can't see how a "bitter fight" is going to weaken the Democratic Party, unless the Democrats are stupid enough to not coalesce around the final nominee; in which case it will be the fault of Democratic voters, not the candidates.  I would hope that in the final weeks of the primaries voters will focus on who they think can best win the general election -- rather than gender, race, charisma or the minor policy differences of the two candidates.

HRC is a known commodity; it will be hard to dredge up new dirt about her; it's already all out there. Everybody knows only too well about her shortcomings. Obama's shortcomings are just beginning to come to light. The Republicans will do everything in their power discredit Obama.To what degree they will succeed is unknown, because Obama is still relatively unknown. One thing for sure is that the Republicans are going to play a lot harder in the general election than Hillary has in the primaries.

The primaries are going to look like a pimple when compared with the general election.

The next President will be a Democrat. I'm betting on Clinton, unless Team Obama learns how to slap her around a little. For some odd reason Barack gives the impression politicians are supposed to be some kindler, gentler form of human being!  Or maybe it's like his ducking out on votes that would piss off his interest groups: tough guy ain't his style. You might get away casting Tom Hanks to play Raymond Carver, but not Charles Bukowski

Obama never picked up steam in the early going until he stiffened a bit and grew a pair, and now they'd better grow back or at best he'll be staring up from the irrelevant, possibly something eight years down the road end of the ticket.  For one thing, he needs to quit beating the dead Iraq War Vote horse and start seriously belittling the Clinton White House in general and Hill's claims to "experience" in particular. (Belittling WJC takes balls; it can also work.) Also, drawing and quartering the guy who blurted all over Canada would send an effective message both to voters and to his campaign.

But in any case McCain's got nothing. Plenty of weaknesses for the Democrats to exploit, a serious age problem (I mean, I'm 56 and I have a serious age problem at my job, as do most of my fellow fifty-somethings), and meanwhile the Democrats are setting turnout records in every state, and while Obama and Clinton hog all the press McCain is hopping up and down on the other side of the room squeaking "Over here! Over here!"

There's nothing the GOP doesn't already know about Obama or Clinton that Obama or Clinton can regift to them, and none of what they do or don't know will do McCain a damn bit of good.  McCain is Dole. McCain is Mondale. I mean, for Goddess' sake, McCain's premise has more leaks than Warren Beatty at the end of "Bonnie and Clyde."

Sorry, GOP; try doing a better job next time picking your guy instead of waiting for the Democrats to self-destruct.

The next President will be a Democrat.

I hope Josh is right.  But as for the general impression that this campaign has become so nasty, I think its largely a construct of the media.  Both sides have had thier moments, and neither side has been entirely innocent, but overall the actual campaigns themselves have really not been nearly as nasty and divisive as the media - and the more rabid supporters on either side - have tried to make out.  The press has gone out of its way to distort every little incident for maximum drama

"Chill out"? So the prospect of voters actually making up their own minds is cause for anxiety and panic?

Here's my $0.02 of advice to the people Kevin Drum is addressing: if you're a journalist, do your job. Stop fawning over one candidate and directing smirks 'n' sneers at the rival candidate, and start analyzing this dispassionately and honestly. There are enough bloggers and cheerleaders doing the Limbaugh thing, already.

Re:1968

Something tells me we won't have George Wallace and Curtis LeMay (Remember "Run 'em over and bomb 'em back"?) To siphon off votes from McCain.    Without him, Humphrey doesn't barely lose, he gets blown out.

A "bitter fight" is a GOOD thing when you have two candidates who are as untested and as green as these two. The people who are having second thoughts about Obama now, the 20% or so who make up their minds during the last few days before the election, have legitimate and serious concerns about the supposedly non-ideological candidate's ideology. If he's the most liberal senator on Capitol Hill, fine; if he's a moderate, fine; but either way, he needs to cease with the tent-revival stuff and start putting down some markers so that people know with greater certainty what they're getting if they elect him.

1968? One example does not prove or disprove anything, and citing an election the Dems lost most certainly doesn't support the argument that in-fighting among Democrats is irrelevant.

What's more important here, I suspect, is whether or not Hillary's going to the mat, which is clearly where this is headed, will only reinforce the image the Right has built of her as cold, ruthless, and power-hungry, thereby weakening her electability while strengthening the chances of her nomination. Add to this a sympethetic figure in McCain (war hero, perceived to be a "straight talker"), from whom she will have a harder time differentiating herself on the war, and I don't see how last night was anything but bad for the Democrats come November.

I agree with eweiss from above, but I continue to be surprised at the amount of Hillary-hatred that's out there. I don't agree with it, but it's there and I am not convinced she can beat McCain.

The problem begins and ends with the Clintons and the Clinton campaign, they don't have the guts to play it straight, I don't even think they know what it is to play it straight.  All they had to begin with was fear mongering and mischaracterization of their opponent. They have no broader vision for America that I can see, no unifying message, and no interest in creating unity or bringing anything new to the table.  That's why they're losing, and that's why they're going to lose.  All they can do is try to drag Obama down with them, in the hopes of salvaging "The Clinton Brand" by claiming that if only they had gotten the nomination, then McCain would've never won the White House.

I've lost so much respect for the Clintons that I believe that a part of them, the evil nasty part that seems to win out at every turn, that part would rather see John McCain in the White House than Barack Obama, for ego sake perhaps or perhaps it's something far deeper.  I'm beginning to think they are of the ilk that can't stand to see anyone else succeed, that perhaps in their minds anyone else's success, even that of an ally, arouses the deepest of contempt.  Much like Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood, I see a vicious murderous streak, that they keep carefully hidden from view most of the time, a side so monstrous that they only dare reveal it in the darkest of places when no one is looking.

I'd like nothing more than to be proven wrong, but with each passing day in this campaign it becomes more and more clear that the ambitions and desires of the Clintons must, out of some malignant necessity, take precedent over all things, including the well-being of this country.  Bill Clinton acted irresponsibly and demonstrated poor judgment, and in my estimation Hillary Clinton is even more culpable when it comes to the question of failures of judgment as a US senator, and has demonstrated great irresponsibility as a Democratic candidate in this election.

From what I've observed coming from the organizations and people who support Hillary Clinton, the dishonest devious tactics they've resorted to in an effort to manipulate voters into supporting Hillary Clinton, I don't think I can support her even for the vice presidents seat any longer.  In fact if Barack Obama chooses her as a running mate I will, out of conscience, be forced to vote for John McCain.  This country simply can't afford another irresponsible lunatic with fatally flawed judgment anywhere near our White House again.

You see what you've done Hillary, you've even managed to turned off a Barack Obama supporter from voting for Barack Obama, should you appear anywhere on the ticket, and I mean anywhere on the ticket, even as the Undersecretary of Labor, because like Richard III, I have no doubt you would find a way to slaughter your way to the crown.  

Down with Hillary Clinton!

Down with the tyrant Queen!

:-)

What Yard said. Obama needs to show us some steel. Also, needs to get more ideological. If he's a left-liberal, OK, if he's a moderate, OK, but he needs to start getting real and show us he can go toe to toe with nasty people who aren't swayed by Scarlett J and the Kids' Crusade/Oprah uplift. Like, to name a few, Repub attack dogs, HRC's attack dogs incl Alpha Attack Dog Bill, and PutinAhmadinejadHu + Turks attacking Kurds and Syrians attacking Lebanese and Islamists attacking Musharraf and Russians bullying the rest of Europe and...

teplukhin2you

Intellectually I agree, unfortunately I feel that Hillary's surrogates have forced an inconvenient  bit of math into the open. Which is to say that win or lose "25 vs. 2" is not going to play out in the party's favor over the long run. The identity stuff makes this "bitter fight" different.

Actually I'm not sure I agree -- or rather I need hear how being boring wins the election for him?  Wouldn't that mean going kitchen sink negative to close the gap in PA? The exiting stuff is what's closed those gaps so far,

Josh raises the question of whether a dragged-out Democratic primary will hurt the eventual nominee.

It's not about going negative, it's about going ideological. He needs to get really specific on some really difficult issues that no one is offering any leadership on. The collapse of the dollar is very scary because it threatens to pull the rug out from under our position as global security guarantor. Specifically, if the Chinese start shifting hundreds of millions into euro-denominated assets, then it becomes obvious that they've lost confidence in our global leadership, and Asia-- the theater that really matters, more than all the others combined-- will become much more unstable.

Right now we have three candidates who, for all their strengths, have offered the public nothing in the way of reassurance that they even begin to comprehend the depth of the sh*t we're in now on the economic/financial front. Let alone that they have anything like a coherent strategy for getting us out.

When I hear Obama spending twice as much time talking about, explaining, persuading, exhorting and y'know LEADING the public on issues like the dollar and our deficits, then I'll take him more seriously. I suspect there are millions of sober-minded non-Facebook voters out there who share my inclination on this.

amen. obama needs to grow a pair, but so do his weak-kneed supporters. HRC's wicked witch tyranny will pale in comparison to what  Rove and company have in store. this ain't Romper Room. i agree with Tep and Yard, but i do not worry about Obama toughness. i'm sure he's fine in that department. The problem is that he has boxed himself into a corner with the group love-in deal and to go postal on her now only makes him look like a hypocrite. it is pretty fascinating.

who knows whether it will hurt or help. It is what it is. She is not getting out and she should not even consider it. So what to do? Stand around and cry about it or make the best of it? I have faith that the process is sound and that it works. I believe that the eventual nominee will be that much stronger because of this fight.

teplukhin2you

Again how does that win a primary? To move votes you either have to generate turnout (excitement) or drive up your opponent's negatives (by going negative). You have an intellectual point but not a practical one.

Strangely, the fact that Nixon won in 1968, when MLK and RFK were barely dead, when hippies roamed the earth, this does not comfort me. I'm with Aaron Brown. I remember actually thinking that Hillary winning in 2000 was a silver lining to Bush's winning. I liked her. Now I loathe her and her husband. Not because she's running against Obama. I never hated Edwards. Because from the war vote onwards all she's done is disgust me. Oh well. That's what I get for paying attention.

These are f***ing hard issues that require major trade-offs, especially the trade-off between a) protecting the dollar and our hegemonic position in the international state system and b) easing credit and stimulating economic activity. Maybe I'm missing something but my understanding of investors' preferences and behavior tells me that a) the strong dollar requires HIGHER interest rates, and b) stimulus requires LOWER interest rates.

This has huge political implications. a) requires the nation to consume less and tighten its belts, fiscal and personal; b) requires the nation to accept a huge loss of influence, esp in Asia, and start ceding economic leadership to the eurozone.

Nothing would give the voters a better glimpse of the candidates' depth-- of mind, of character, of vision and above all, of leadership-- than asking them to think carefully about this choice and then tell us which medicine they intend to apply to the nation now.

Tep, I am not disagreeing with you. I just don't see how your suggestion is practical politically,

Tep, here's the problem with going idealogical right now in the primary:  Substantively, it's very hard for Obama to draw an ideological gap with Clinton.  The biggest policy fights in debates have been on mandate/no mandate in health care, not anything substantive.  It's hard to draw contrasts when you share the same platforms, hence this campaign has become identity politics/resume/charisma etc based, and stands to get nastier.  If you can't say you have a different plan then the front runner, you throw the "kitchen sink" to drive up their negatives.  Perhaps Obama needs to substance her to death to break the flash vs. dependable meme (a great media construction, btw).  Alternatively, I think he needs to open up the wounds of the Clinton White House and indeed the Clinton post-White House to paint them as old-Washington corrupt politics without going far negative himself.  It's a testement to his decency that we hear Rezko or NAFTA from folks all the time, but seem to have forgotten Bill's influence peddling with slave-mine owners and dictators (Remeber Boratgate?)  He needs to take the gloves off on her experience and neutralize it, maybe by getting some good experienced surrogates out there to do that (Biden, anyone?  Seriously, if you want to be Veep or Sec. of State Joe, you gotta realize you'd actually have something to do in only one of these administrations).  

Alternatively, who's ready for five months of back and forth fighting where Hillary destroys Obama's favorables, never becomes favorable herself or closes the Delegate gap, and the deadlocked convention turns to dark horse Al Gore?  

Memo to Barack Obama:

You don't want to attack Hillary (or McCain, for that matter)? That's okay, you don't have to. I have a better target, that allows you to be more direct in your messaging and in your policy positioning, and to continue to preach an end to partisan bickering, while showing you're able to get tough on somebody, to attack.

Don't attack your political opponents. Instead, start attacking the American electorate.

Tell them the truth: that they're spoiled. That they want to have their cake and eat it, too. "Guns AND butter? Bitch, you trippin'." That they should have paid attention in arithmetic class, because getting their SSI at current rates and retirement ages without raising everyone's taxes ain't gonna work. That health care, any way they slice it, costs. That, meanwhile, you are about to inherit a huge budget deficit, a huge trade imbalance, a quickly weakening dollar, and rapidly rising energy costs--but never mind about that because you don't really matter, but what does matter is that THEY are also inheriting all of the above, and more.

Ask them if they've heard the phrase "the Chinese Century."  Then say, "No? Then I suggest you Google it."

Tell them to write down the age they expect to retire--now tell them to add five, six, maybe seven years to it--if they start doubling their savings rates immediately.  Tell they how much upgrading the America's publicly engineered infrastructure--roads, bridges, water treatment plants, etc.--after they've put off maintaining it for years, is going to cost them.

Tell them how much their prior support for the Iraq War is going to cost their children. Tell them you agree with them that not providing mental health services and PT and job training for returning Iraq and Afghan veterans is a travesty--then hold out your hand and say, "Give me another $20 billion to pay for it, or STFU."

Tell them you didn't invent stagflation: they did.

Tell them, yes, they're right, their kids can barely read. Then ask them what their kids are doing, right this minute. Then tell them to get back to you when they get a clue.

You get the idea. Actually it gets quite easy, once you get the hang of it. One thing for sure: it will scare Hillary to death--HRC may suggest you need HRT.

Sock it to 'em, Barack. Then shut up, and just stare straight at them. Right through the camera, right deep down into their quivering little decadent post-industrial make-it-stop-mommy hearts.  Just keep staring, and don't blink.

Elect you? Maybe not. Or maybe, just maybe, they might even repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment and elect you a third, fourth, even fifth time.

(Possible re-election commercial: Michelle staring down into the upraised camera, a stern look on her face. "Now you've done it. Your father is going to be VERY upset when he gets home...")

If Obama would only start to raise these issues, to reframe the agenda, he would

-- show skeptical older voters that he's got some real depth on bread-and-butter issues

-- force HRC to debate economics and financial matters in the here and now, thereby displacing the fond memories of the economic boom during her husband's admin

-- position himself favorably for the general by simultaneously attacking McCain's shallowness

Seriously, isn't this a better tactical strategy for states like PA than more raves and gassing about "change"?

Oh, williamyard, my heart and mind are lighter. Thank you for what I trust is wisdom speaking.

"Seriously, isn't this a better tactical strategy for states like PA than more raves and gassing about "change"?"

Uh, tep, you're assuming that there's substance in Barry Obozo. Actually, there isn't; it's all smoke and mirrors with him.

I'm on record as saying I don't think the drawn-out primary is likely to prove a major handicap

Byron York has a column in USA Today suggesting the Democrats abandon their system of proportional delegate