Hillary should stop now before she destroys the Democratic Party. All those new voters can't be good.

Well then, it makes sense that Kevin wants Hillary to drop out now. Can't have silly things like advantages going into the general election.

Do you actually think about these things before posting?

Serious question that I've not seen anyone answer:

Why shouldn't Obama start the general campaign now? He's still sure to lock up the nomination, and he can prove his ability to be effective in the general to unswayed supers and voters.

Although Kevin did say, just a few posts ago, "It's time for her to go", it wasn't necessarily aimed at him.

This is why I think Clinton's scorched-Earth campaign is so risky for the party as a whole. Will these enthusiastic new voters--which polls show are heavily in the Obama camp--even go to the polls in November if Clinton manages to swing enough super delegates her way to win the nomination? Or will they be so honked off that they will sour on politics?

We can rail all we want about how it's "ridiculous" or "absurd" or "short-sighted" for new voters to be that fickle or petty, but all the railing in the world is not going to prevent it. At least, that's how it appears to me.

The long Dem primary campaign is a reprieve for McCain, but I don't think that will matter much: the GOP's going down.

and how many of these new Dem registrations are Limbaugh-led ?

The Bad News:
Rush Limbaugh is taking credit for it. He calls it Operation Chaos.
There are enough pinheads in PA (I should know. I grew up there.) that he could be right.

cleek beat me. Bastidge!

Another advantage of the long primary season is that it keeps our candidates in the public eye, and they both look pretty good. Even when the media's flacking them over stupid stuff like "that's America", Rev. Jeremiah's Jeremiads, Bosnian exaggerations, etc., they project a lot more seriousness and intelligence than the hapless McCain.

Also, I agree with the idea that Obama should just start campaigning as if it were the general, and more-or-less ignore Clinton. I guess Clinton should do likewise, if she's capable of it.

"Why shouldn't Obama start the general campaign now?"

I agree. Whether it is Obama or Clinton, either one of them playing scorched earth is an idiotic zero sum game. Either one of them could actually demonstrate their claimed leadership skills, by you know, like, leading....?

Going after McCain, leading on Habeas, or Wiretapping, or Foreclosure, .... Instead of telling us your plan, dipshits, why not start working the plan now.

Yesterday, the New York's Passenger Bill of Rights was overturned by the Supremes who said it needs a Federal Law.

Since this is such an obvious no brainer, good for a change pander to passengers, I cockily predicted at TalkLeft that ALL THREE Candidates would have proposed a Federal Passengers Bill of Rights using the New York law as a model by day's end.

But every single one of our dipshit candidates chose NOT to lead but chose to follow their same old same old game plan of negative campaigning and there was no discussion from the candidates (that I know of :) ) of the Passenger's Bill of Rights.

They could LEAD right now. But instead they are just the same old same old unimaginative politicians.

Fundamentally, I don't know why Obama would not go after McCain right now. It would demonstrate his leadership skills.

I registered as a Republican a number of years ago because the town I live in had many more Democrats than Republicans, so anyone who seriously wanted to challenge the political status quo ran in the Republican primary rather than trying to win the general election as a Democrat. This certainly didn't cause me, or the other people I know who did the same thing, to identify with the Republican party.

"The act of registering causes you to identify with the party you registered with, and once that's happened you're almost certain to vote for that party in the general election too."

We'll have to see if that's the case November 4th. There is some claim that Obama is doing a good thing by encouraging Republicans and Independents to reregister as Democrats and vote in the primary "to change the party", and some claim that what he does damages the Democratic party by introducing Democrats for a day who will reregister as Republican after the primary, or who will just vote Republican in November.

Kevin come December people are going to want to know, which candidate was most destructive and which was most constructive. And they're going to want to know if Obama brought in "real Dems" or brought in phony Republican Dems for a day.

You might want to think about how a pollster can determine the various effects.

You haven't read much of Jerome Armstrong lately.

I registered as a Republican a number of years ago because the town I live in had many more Democrats than Republicans, so anyone who seriously wanted to challenge the political status quo ran in the Republican primary rather than trying to win the general election as a Democrat. This certainly didn't cause me, or the other people I know who did the same thing, to identify with the Republican party.

In a similar vein, I registered as a Republican to vote for McCain in the 2000 primary even though Bush pretty much had the nomination wrapped up to my recollection. I figured it might be nice to cast a protest vote against him in his own party in his own state.

But I did not for a second consider myself a Republican, even though I got lots of GOP crap in the mail for years afterwards. There are serious flaws to the Balz logic. As pointed out above, there is right-wing malfeasance afoot.

Republicans down 1% Democrats up 4%. I would suggest that at worst only one out of 5 or 6 new Democrats is a Limbaugh Democrat, and that is at worst. On balance good news for Democrats.

You're dreaming if you think all those registering can only be good for the party. There are many who are doing so ONLY to mess up the Dems, mainly by voting for Hillary.

Secondly, for the Dems, this internal war, with all the mud being thrown by the Clintons does NOT bode well for us in the general. If it doesn't leave many Dems furious and sitting on the sidelines, at the very least it's arming McCain for the war.

ah, not so fast Einstein. Those who register with hopes of Hillary being the candidate are more likely to vote for McCain if she isn't the candidate. This is obvious if you think about why they'd prefer her over Obama.

When the general election arrives, Democrats will have voter lists far larger than they ever imagined and will have to spend far less money than in past years identifying these voters. That will affect every candidate up and down the ballot.

That's the big time good news from this, IMO.

I basically agree with Ron Byers. I don't have confidence enough to post numbers, but the sense of the matter is I think that this notion of Limbaugh zombies trashing the Democratic primaries is wrong.

We're perfectly capable of trashing our own system, thank you.

But beyond the snark, I've seen a lot of postings all over the blogosphere tonight commenting on this Balz piece. And they are dominated by this paranoia about the evil Republicans and their plan to elect McCain by voting for Hillary.

This is silly. The Republicans are not ten feet tall, they do not all think alike. Really. There are plenty of Republicans who are basically moderate Libertarian types who are outraged at the privacy invasions - from Schiavo to the NSA wiretaps - that the far Right has foisted on their party. The "post-partisan" (or whatever you call it) rhetoric that Obama has been preaching attracts these people.

Now, for what it's worth, I'd tend to agree that these people are not tied strongly to the Democrats. That makes it all the better that we're getting the registration data, to canvass them and reinforce our positions, to convince them that as long as the looney fringe runs the Republican Party, then the Democrats should get their vote.

Oh yeah, one more thing about the Republicans I'm referring to. All you have to say to them is "Two more Scalias on the Supreme Court" to scare the living daylights out of them.

Me too.

Uhh, Kevin, Balz overlooked the fact that in Pennsylvania, like in Ohio, many GOPers are apparently re-registering as Democrats.

Especially with Hillary practically fellating Dick Scaife, the party-switching will continue as long as it can.

Balz also overlooks party-switching as part of the cause for increased Ohio turnout.

In other words, you linked to a piece of MSM stupidity. Might have an entry for worst post of the week here.

I truly don't understand why the Obamites keep bitching and demanding that Hillary drop out. Obama has not won the nomination and he cannot win nomination without the "superdelegates" who, as the rules clearly state, can vote for anyone (Pelosi needs to shut the fuck up and read the rules). Indeed, Michigan and Florida are out of the picture because of the "rules" as the Obamites like to say, and as Obama's attorney's have argued sucessfully (reminds me of the 2000 election and the chad issue).

Well, the rules state that superdelegates can vote for anyone and "pledged" delegates "shall" (not "must") vote for the person they've been "pledged" to vote for. Read the rules people and shut the fuck up about Hillary dropping out of the race because Obama hasn't won anything yet. If Obama and his followers think he can win then keep making the case and we'll see if he prevails at the democratic convention.

Although I think it is in Sen. Clinton's best interests to concede at this time, I do not think the race has diminished the eventual Democratic candidate's chances. Having Democrats in the news fighting about who has the best Iraq withdrawal policy or best health care plan is what gives the campaign meaning and energizes the electorate.

McCain's only has let them eat shit policies. More war and more defaults.

Especially with Hillary practically fellating Dick Scaife, the party-switching will continue as long as it can.

Nice bit of misogynistic imagery, combined of course with a nice slam on an affair that Hillary had nothing to do with. But the best part is to accomplish this, you're ignoring news from a year ago, news that Kevin even spelled out just for you.

I can see why you're upset about the level of discourse in this election cycle.

Jerry: News that Kevin spelled out a year ago? Not on this post, he didn't.

Get a clue.

No, you're right. It was on this post below, link goes to your comment on THAT post.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013406.php#1249697

Perhaps if you were less eager to blogwhore your blog and spent more time reading what others have written and thinking, you would understand on how many different levels your reference to Clinton fellating Scaife is wrong and disgusting.

Gadfly, or blowfly?

Jerry, I was commenting in regard to this post. I read that post. And, Kevin's post there ONLY said Scaife's position had been building for a number of years, not Hillary's.

Is that so hard to understand? I guess it is.

Maybe you ought to write more specifically, Jerry. You never mentioned "another post" in your initial comments.

As for "blogwhoring," well, if you don't like that I said Hillary is trying to find what level of Dante's Inferno she is going to reside in, that's your problem.

I think you know what I meant by blogwhoring SG, as you have written so often about over at your blog and asked us to examine....

I think you also know why I've said your mention of "fellation" is wrong, disgusting, and misogynistic, which is why you keep trying to ignore *that* issue.

Around here we constantly accuse various political men of being on their knees in front of Bush, having Cheney's willie down their throats, etc., so I don't think the Hillary fellating Scaife thing is particularly misogynistic. I doubt SG was even thinking about the Lewinsky-Bill Clinton thing that evidently popped straight into Jerry's mind. After I read the phrase "a nice slam on an affair that Hillary had nothing to do with" it took me a few seconds to even figure out what he was talking about.

I still wouldn't have used that image for the reason that it might have been read as sexist given Hillary Clinton's gender.

But SG's kinda desperate blogwhoring is amusing.

Absolutely. In open primary states like Indiana, having a contested primary for the first time in decades will allow the Dems to be identified for the Fall election GOTV.

The rest of the country should shut up and let the rest of us vote.

If you analyze Hillary's primary performance it's clear that if she loses the nomination her supporters will simply jump ship and write in Satan. Her positions on the future of the war in Iraq, healthcare, taxes, and economic stimuli are as different from Obama as white and black. All she and her supporters want to do is unbolt items from the kitchen and throw them and/or go outside and start burning their lawns with propane torches.

While this is a good sign, the discord created by the Clintons is going to erode the party base and make people look at McCain and ask, "why not"?

Someone said it upthread, I believe, and I think it is a marvelous idea - Obama should utterly ignore the Clintoons and campaign as the presumptive nominee. Take the high road and tune the static out.

The race isn't over yet, many people still WANT to vote and calls from Obamaites for her to concede are tiresome.

It appears to me that Obama's followers are setting up a very familiar pattern - dish Hillary for abusing the Democratic Party so if Obama doesn't win in November they can blame her! But I hate to tell you guys, this primary will be all but forgotten in November and your guy is on his own. If he loses, there will be no one to blame but Obama.

this primary will be all but forgotten in November

Not if Unreality Jane gets her wish for a floor fight. Even the short memories of Americans won't blip the results of six months of the sort of tactics she's stooping to now. Especially since the convention's in August and the election's in November.

Even Hillary does not believe that pledged delegates are required to vote for whom they are pledged. http://www.newsweek.com/id/120062/page/2 *She* seems to think that this will work in her favor. I'm thinking that there are more Hillary delegates that will rethink their positions. Just sayin'...

and how many of these new Dem registrations are Limbaugh-led ?

Past experience has shown that about 10% of registered voters vote for the other party.

Frankly, I think that Limbaugh's bluster is desperate spin: "The Republicans aren't bleeding voters -- we're secretly registering for the other party to mess up their primary! Yeah, that's it!"

The Democratic Party has been around (in its present incarnation) since 1828 at least. It will survive the present primary, although I'm not certain some bloggers will survive.
While he leads in delegates, Sen. Obama hasn't won the nomination. Yet. And until 2024 delegates vote for Sen. Obama as the Democratic nominee for president, it isn't his. Those are the rules.
Right now there are only two ways for Sen. Obama to get the nomination without waiting for the convention: Sen. Clinton could withdraw (won't happen until June 30 at the earliest) or nearly all the superdelegates could come out in his support.
Since all the primaries/caucuses haven't taken place (see June 30 above), having the superdelegates come out for Sen. Obama would effectively short circuit the nomination process by disenfranchising those of us that haven't yet voted. It would be as "stolen" a nomination as if those superdelegates were to vote en masse for Sen. Clinton tomorrow.
Since so many supporters of Sen. Obama have voiced the fear, real or blog-induced (the latter, most likely), that Sen. Clinton might "steal" the nomination via the superdelegates, I find it strange that they wish to do exactly the same thing. That's the "New Politics" for you!
Any attempt to short-circuit that process is what will "destroy" the Democratic Party; not Sen. Clinton's continuing to campaign for the nomination, not "uncertainty" about the nomination, but what appears more and more like a bald-faced attempt to ram the leading contender down the throats of nonsupporters before fellow Democrats have exercised their right to register their choice at the ballot box.
Sen Obama can go into the convention leading in delegates (and popular vote?) and, after a ballot or two, be nominated by acclamation. Why mess with that?

Stay calm, Doug. The supers will wait until all the primaries are over, and then come out for Obama in June. Take it to the bank.