McCain is proudly carrying the Bush legacy into this election; not going to fly. And if he's going to present more Bushonomics as the answer, he will lose, and lose soundly.

I for one am hoping for some severe setbacks in Iraq and a fairly harsh recession so that we can really put this thing away!

Clinton "would still have a lot going for her in the general election?"

Please. We come to TNR to get away from this sort of bullshit, not to splash around in it.

What Clinton will have if she steals this nomination is the concerted effort of every principled Democratic and independent voter in America . . . to elect John McCain. (Note that I used the qualifier "principled," which narrows the pool somewhat.)

If Clinton's the nominee, my new target number will be 10: 10 arrests for disorderly conduct before the end of the general election campaign.

Clinton's nomination will signal to every American progressive that it's time to grind the Democratic Party into the fucking dust once and for all -- that there's nothing here worth saving. (Of course, this is something that many have rightly suspected for the last 7 years -- and especially the last 2.)

The only way the last eight years could have been worse is if Bush had somehow been running as a Democrat. Well, in this HRC scenario, it looks like we may have our new worst-case scenario: a racist, sleazy, dynastic, irresponsible, Rovian neo-con who's going to hijack our party's nomination.

Better eight more years of Bush than the unforgettable insult of a single HRC term.  Another Bush term wouldn't do what a Hillary nomination would: guarantee that no progressive black person or young person ever votes again.

I still think Bosnia-gate will hurt HRC as much, can you imagine a debate with McCain: "Hillary, you say you've been under fire, I KNOW I've been under fire..."  This will get used as a tagline to hammer the 'exaggeration' message.

Hey Hungarian Great Bela Tarr.. I didn't know there was someone else out there who thought exactly like I do... And on some level I am almost sorry that she won't be able to pull it off.  BECAUSE there might be worse things than having McCain take responsibility for the next 3 years with the help of a massive infusion of votes by Dems like me, and independents... and then trash the Democratic party and start a new Progressive or Independent Party.

Well it isn't going to happen.  The only question is how much will what The Queen is doing hurt Obama in the General?   Which it has long been my contention is her goal so that she can run again in 2012 and say:  "I told you so.  But I am here to save you this time."  Except someone of us won't forget.  Unfortunately too many will.

I think you're assuming, though, that even if this has the potential (and appears on the surface) to be as damaging or worse than the swift boating, the main question is how the campaign deals with it. By most accounts (and recent Gallup Polls), Obama has thus far done exactly what he needed to. Your correctly pointing out that Obama is a more talented politician (and Plouffe and Axelrod far better strategists than Shrum and co.) contradicts (rather than sort of follows up, as you have it doing) the idea that this would be equally damaging. I encourage a second look, sir. It's a different situation. And not as bad for the Democrats. PLUS, like you say, 2008 is a much better year for the party from the start.

-An adoring reader.

Late Edition: The Wright Experience

I was at a gathering over Easter weekend and an acquaintance of mine, a regular Andrew Sullivan reader, discussed his Wright experience (Sullivan reader = not exactly radical left);  meaning he's actually seen Wright in action directly.  Wright delivered the keynote at a conference for ministries this acquaintance attended.  He thought Wright was an excellent speaker.

You don't mention one other important difference between the 2004 election and the current one, which is that Bush isn't running.  If it were Obama vs. Bush, Obama would win in a landslide (which is why Dems have been trying to spin McCain as a third Bush term).  The problem is that McCain is the one running, which makes things somewhat tougher for a few reasons.  First, he won't be seen as having nearly the degree of responsibility for the current mess that Bush has.  Second, he's way ahead of Bush in terms of perceived (and actual) intelligence and competence.  Finally, even if he's been shifting to the right in recent years, he's far still more moderate than Bush, meaning that the fight for the middle of the political spectrum will be tougher.

We'll see how it shapes up, and I still like the Dems' chances, but it seems that *both* parties will have better candidates this time around.

"start a new Progressive or Independent Party"

Good luck with that.

There's no question that a party focused on the US _working man's economic concerns and needs_ would be not just viable but probably the dominant one in the US. But that, alas, is not what most self-labelled US "progressives" really care about. As Obama's incompetent handling of his association with Wright has shown, there's nothing nearer or dearer to the "progressive" heart than good ol' identity politics.

Which is the surest way to alienate the white working class and divide blacks from not just this core swing group but an even more pivotal one, latinos. If we could somehow force ourselves to GET BEYOND IDENTITY POLITICS and focus like the proverbial laser beam on those bread-and-butter economic issues that, in the next electoral cycle and in most cycles, are the only ones we really need to put us over the top, we'd dominate US politics for at least the next decade.

Obama was supposed to be the great uniter. Maybe he can still rescue that image, but he's got his work cut out for him.

A new party might be nice, but as long as we still have the same toxic relationship between money and politics and it continues to be possible to gerrymander and to intimidate and discourage voter participation, we would in short order duplicate the current system even with a new party.

On the other hand, if we really had a one person, one vote system, or something even close, the parties would have no choice but to pursue the interests of a broad majority.  

We need strictly publicly financed elections, universal voter registration, a legal requirement that all election districts of all kinds be the minimum compact size, and to outlaw "paying it forward" with public monies.  If  we ever have honest and competitive elections, things will change dramatically. We might even consider requiring that all lobbying be done in public, at scheduled sessions open to th press.  Let lobbyists make their pleas in the public eye instead of behind closed doors.

I would say these changes are marginally more likely to occur than a new party.

this is Hillary's only viable shot at the Presidency and she knows it. There are no second acts with Democrats (only Gore, who was VP in the interregnum). And in 4 years her base of baby boomers will be 4 years older and more marginalized, and it will have been 12 years since the Clintons were out of power. Also she will have to decide to either run for re-election in NY or for the Presidency. And since she has shown it is possible I can easily see a few other women running, women far less divisive than Hillary. She is not trying to kill Obama for a future run, she is trying to kill Obama because she can't imagine a future without her front and center.

Hungarian wrote:

"What Clinton will have if she steals this nomination is the concerted effort of every principled Democratic and independent voter in America . . . to elect John McCain. (Note that I used the qualifier "principled," which narrows the pool somewhat.)"

Aha! At last, you Obamaphiles are telling it like it is. You see this post-racial candidate with the platform that's only marginally different from Hillary's as a stealth liberal. When he says "change," you hear "progressive."  This is why you are so uncritical of him, and so intolerant of anyone else's criticisms. You look at his skin color and project progressive values all over him, though he has been ever-so-careful to avoid committing to anything of the sort.

Well I have news for you: we centrists who support Hillary share your bias: that is, we strongly suspect that Obama is not what he seems. The presence of Rev. Wright and Samantha Power give hints that we (and you!) are both right. Now what remains to be seen, after this ritual of truth-telling, is whether the Democratic Party is worth saving. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if whoever loses the Democratic nomination runs a third-party candidacy. Or is that fourth party, in light of Nader's bid?

Certainly McCain comes away the winner, but that should suit you just fine.

Only please stop lying about WHY you think Hillary should step aside. You're not interested in Democratic Party unity.  If you were, you might consider the flip side of that equation: if Obama stepped aside, the party could just as well be unified. His perseverance in a race that neither he nor Hillary can win outright is just as much a case of political narcissism. The Democratic Party is divided. That's what this primary season is all about. Putting a band aid over this division – even if he's as charmng as Obama – is not going to make the divisions go away, and you know it.

dkrieger, yes of course the winner of the popular vote, pledged delegate count, and most states should step aside. wtf are you smoking? The point is, which you are ignoring, is not the division but the odds of Hillary winning the nomination and what she would do to win it.

If she ran a Huckabee type campaign nobody would say anything, she could run until the convention. If Obama implodes then she will be there to inherit the mantle. She can also run the table and win the remaining contests, and she could then make a strong pitch, but she can't CAN NOT attempt to destroy Obama in order to win it. But the perception is that she will attempt to destroy Obama, and that is why she is detested so. And you know there are multiple instances in which she has done so already (claiming McCain is more qualified than Obama being a more egregious example).

I am 60-40 Obama over McCain, but 100-0 McCain over Hillary. Obama can still lose my vote, but Hillary certainly has. I would actually prefer to see both Hillary and Obama step aside and give it to Gore, if they both truly loved the country they would.

Honestly, I don't see how any centrist can support Hillary. Another 4 years of hyperpartisanship? At least McCain and Obama pretend to make nice, as did Reagan.

Unify the party., Nominate Gore.

Superdelegates, do your jobs.

Tep - you're delusional friend, Gore wuld lose by more than Hillary would.

dkrieger - I;m a New Yorker.  As with so many Hillary suppporters, I mostly read invective and attacks against about what a godawful human being Obama is, rather than a concrete, detailed and positive case for Hillary. I can't think of once when I read anything like that.  

Frankly, I don't care about this latest hilarious Bosnia lie of hers, or last weeks Irish peace talks lie, I don't care about her "heart" or her husband or what war rooms she might have put together to attack Kathleen Willey and the rest of Bill's women.

I care about her voting record.

I've been watching Hillary's illustrious me-first Senate career from the first day.  Hillary lost me and most people I now years ago - let's start with her disgusting "bankrupcy" bill vote (how does the supposed expert in health care sleep at night and vote for that?  When 80% of bankrupcies are middle class and poor people who can't pay their health care bills?  Hey, maybe she bought a Republican vote or twelve with that?  Does she really believe that?).  

Who knows, perhaps Senator Clinton REALLY does believe that the Constitution needs and ammendment to ban flag burning.  If so, she's a jackass.  If not, she's a cynical jackass.  Not only that - it doesn't just insult my intelligence, it insults the right wingers whose ass she is so obviously trying to kiss.  Again: does she really think that she changed anyone's minds treating people like such pavlovian idiots?  I love Bill CLinton, but the time has come for them both to accept that licking the boots of your enemies does nothing but make them loathe you more.

Who knows, perhaps Senator Clnton WAS just too busy to ever do party building work in the state she used to step up to the Presidency, unlke Chuck Schumer, who constantly raises money for the party and was born and rasied here, worked his way up for 20 years and who constantly stumps for Democrats running for office here.  Hillary a terrible reputation for selfishness here in the state party.  She's is well-known as 100% about Hillary.  

One of my best friends is also a hgh level staffer for another respected Senator on the Armed Services Commitee - if you don't know that Hillary also has the same rep in the Senate - you're holding your hands over your ears and eyes. It is common knowledge that if you can't help her, don't expect her to even acknowedge your existence.  Don't believe me?  There are plenty of articles on this in "the Hill" and other Capitol Hill papers.  

But perhaps you don't care about this stuff - I thought since you were an acknowledged centrist Democrat, party building, paying dues (one of Hillary's favorite beefs against Obama - who has spent a great deal of time and money party building) might matter to you.

Iraq?  I don't hold that vote against her - I hold her calculating, equivocating, transparent blathering about it ever since against her.  John McCain is where he is right now entirely for owning his Iraq vote head on.  If Hillary's explanation makes sense or is believable to many people, I'd be surprised.  It was called "The Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq" vote and all she can do is lie about what she "thought" it meant.  These are the things that drive people insane about her and have lost her many many votes.  She is impossible to trust, and thatis not Obama's fault.

Maybe I could be forgivmg - hey everyone is entitled to be ambitious, so she wanted to run for President (paifully obvous from her pandering, embarrasing voting record from her first day in office).  Perhaps I could overlook her throwing poor and middle class bankrupt people under the bus, or what have you, if she had ONCE stood up for a controversial progressive, centrist issue.  She couldn't do it, she might have Rush call her names!  And lost a few votes for President! Not once did she stick her neck out to end legalized bigotry against gay people, for example.  Nada.  

This is not Obama's fault - Hillary's reputation is something she earned entirely on her own.

"Tep - you're delusional friend, Gore wuld lose by more than Hillary would"

How so? (I mean, on the loss margin issue, not the well-established fact that I'm delusional)

Hi Tep -

Gore is about the least respected politician out there to Republicans of all stripes - it doesn't make a bit of sense to me, but it's true. His moderate, technocratic, thoughtful record - with lots of concrete accomplishments in govt, let alone his evironmental rock star status - is totally ignored. He's awkward at defending himself.  The press is simply viscious to him.  I wonder if that would change.  Maybe some.

He's the object of utter contempt to the right (which shows you the intelligence level of the modern right). He used to get creamed on independents in the polls too.  If someone showed me some sort of movement with independents (which would shock me), I might retract my disbelief at his having a chance.

Why would he bother?  He's beloved and has more power than he ever has now.

PS I am grumpy as hell these days, I need to cool it on the name calling - sorry for the delusional snipe.  If Hillary is going to keep dragging my ass through this muck for another three months, the least she could do is hand out free bottles of rum so I can handle it.

"I love Bill CLinton, but the time has come for them both to accept that licking the boots of your enemies does nothing but make them loathe you more." Excellent point. But isn't that what Obama says he would do, with Iran for example, if he became President? This post would convince me to vote for McCain regardless of whom the Democrats select. Except that McCain has also licked plenty of enemy boots himself.

Biden for President.