Well, it's good that people are starting to realize that this needs to be over before the convention. 1 month just isn't enough time to both heal wounds and run a good campaign. A lot of people seem to think otherwise, though.

Highlighting this kind of context in a quick hit and link is one of the strongest features of political blogs. Great post!

I've never really taken seriously the notion that the drawn-out nomination battle would permanently damage either candidate.

I agree. But the one thing that would drive voters away in November is if they see that their candidate has won by all the traditional standards of the game and a group of insiders throws that victory out.

That's why I don't understand Hillary's argument that Obama's pledged delegates should feel free to switch to her. If the voters choice doesn't fundamentally count at any level, why would they bother to show up in November.

It's occured to me for a while that while the Clinton-Obama battle since Ohio/Texas hasn't done much to move the polls in favor of either Clinton or Obama against each other, it has served to push both of them down in the national polls against McCain. They're not helping themselves, or even hurting their opponent particularly. Rather, they're collectively dragging down the party's brand. (and when i say that, i don't hold them equally culpable for that: i think it's the particular way that Clinton is trying to weaken Obama that is making this competition destructive. and i'm struck by how much Obama has refrained from responding in kind.)

but whoever's fault it is, i think it's ojectively true that a negative dynamic is being created that's turning off swing voters. i think you're on to something in the narrow sense that the drag won't be particularly stronger on one prospective nominee versus the other, and that the drag will be more pronounced for the Party than for either candidate. But it WILL hurt the eventual nominee, whoever it will be.

Clinton could concede, but absent that I think it's better for the Dem Party if it plays out for the simple reason of letting people get their chance in what still appears to be a close race, even if the numbers technically don't work for her.

Frankly, it *already* looks bad-- how does it happen again that 2 states "didn't count?" etc. This is the sort of thing that gave Clinton ammunition in the first place.

In other words, I think their "brand problem" is a *real* problem, not just an image problem. Great, so the candidates "all agreed" to something and now she alone changed her mind. That's one thing, but *I* always thought The Party has its head up its ass with their rule about "no primaries before Feb 5 (except these couple special states we give special treatment to)" in the first place.

Certainly, there need to be rules, but it looks dictatorial-- without *actually* being able to keep things under control. It looks badly managed in addition to being divided as to candidate.

So, they can at least try to affirm the right to vote, even if they fucked it up in the first place. Having the "Obamamaniacs" force HRC out isn't going to play well with a lot of people, either.

I'm no Hillary fan, but unless she comes out and says she quits, it looks like that's the way it is.