I'm more worried about the possible incapacity of the "loser" to fall in behind the chosen nominee. In the last election, the person proved to be a true statesman and a loyal member of the Democratic Party. Hopefully, the "loser" in 2008 will follow his or her predecessor's example.

"The mouthpieces of the far Right don't make their arguments about internal Democratic politics in good faith."

*****

No doubt.

Pardon me if this is too obvious to mention, but when Rightists accuse Leftists of being "elitists," isn't the logical response for the Leftists to accuse the Rightists of being "populists"?

I agree with your argument, Jonathan, but I have to admit that his assessment of Clinton does have the ring of truth to it. I've been following this campaign through all the tiresome months and have gone from Edwards supporter open to Hillary or Barack equally to someone who just shakes his head in disgust at Mrs. Clinton whenever I see or hear her.

It's a question of maturity. Dean had it when Kerry won the nomination. Will Obama or Clinton have it when the other wins the nomination? Sometimes a candidate's sense of entitlement prevents him or her from supporting the bigger movement. I think Ted Kennedy lost Carter his second term in that way.

Hillary and Bill both remind me of Republicans all the time, they all take up populist rhetoric and label their opponents as 'elitists' while they work on destroying the middle class with deregulation and free trade (as log as its politically convenient). Oh sure the Clintons are for a razor thin protection net but beneath the cover lies a pro corporate agenda cloaked by meaningless pandering and labeling. The Clintons and the DLC are both full of the same hypocritical BS as the Republicans, and they all win because people are shallow and willing to buy a cheap line of BS and shoot themselves in the foot because of the 'truthyness' of the BS sold to them. Cheap BS coming from right wing commentators is just that – cheap BS, and doesn't change anything.

Michael Z:

That's because Hillary and Bill are Republicans registered as Democrats, like Joe Lieberman and many other DLC members in Congress that have kept George W. Bush from being impeached against the will of the population, and the DLC members totally deadened a supposed democratic Congress in order to get the Bush Agenda pushed through.

It is time for the people of the 70% Majority Common Population to wake up and quit being bought and sold for a nickel by the DLC Republican manipulators.

True enough, and certainly something the SuperDels should be watching. For example, the rising Republican cross-over vote for Hillary, starting in Texas. I think we all learned in the 90s that the Right would rather gouge out their collective eyes with chopsticks rather than vote for *anyone* with the name "Clinton." So that facts that Murdoch donates to HRC's campaing, or that Scaife is now singing his odes of love to HRC, or that MSRNC's Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan just can't get enough of HRC's "fighting spirit" -- plus, as mentioned, the 50K "R" votes in Texas (that pushed her over the top in the primary), the 100K in PA that helped her cinch that deal, or the 200K "new" voters in IN that appear to be leaning her direction (most of whom are crossover Repubs) should be something the SuperDels pay close, close attention to on the supposed wins, and that thing of electability in the fall.

Those new sizable crossovers that keep her campaign alive will not be there for her in the fall.

If the SuperDels make the mistake of all mistakes and HRC is the nominee, bank on a chant of "four more years" to emanate from The Fellowship and other back-benchers on the Right.

I somewhat challenge that the Right voice is full of "cheap BS, and doesn't change anything."

No, I do not challenge it is cheap BS. However, if you look closely at the polling data from Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania, you will see a rising tide of Republican crossover voters voting for HRC. It was something like 5-9% in the Texas primary, and she won that primary by something like 3%. In Ohio is was something like about half of her "crushing victory over Obama" of 10% (she pulled maybe 5-6% Republican there). Though she lost it was an astronomical 24-25% of her overall vote (the basis, no doubt, for that very first suggestion Obama was losing the "white" vote; I suspect most of those "whites" were just your average Republican...). I haven't figured or found the percentage for PA, but saw that the probable gains from Republican votes there was close to 100,000 Repubs voting for her.

I contend that Libmaugh's "Operation Chaos" is cheap BS that his followers are listening to -- and acting on -- which means it very much *is* changing things.

About the Clinton's seeming Republican. How about the fact that, since 1993, HRC has belonged to a "religious" organization named the Fellowship, with an underlying goal of changing D.C. and the functioning of government itself to better conform to Protestant Christian rules and principles? You know, a sex segregated organization, divided into "cells" (their term), and with members like Rick Santorum, John Ashcroft, Sam Brownback and George "Macacca" Allen?

Tends to make schmoozing with Murdoch and Scaife and using Rove-playbook tactics against her "fellow" Democrat to become far more understandable.

Correction: Apologies for being energized early this morning, and not being a little more careful in my last comment.

I said, "Though she lost it was an astronomical 24-25% of her overall vote (the basis, no doubt, for that very first suggestion Obama was losing the "white" vote; I suspect most of those "whites" were just your average Republican...)."

To actually make sense, the first three words of that statement needed to be followed by "...Mississippi...". The whole statement, to be more accurate is:

Though she lost Mississippi, it [Republican crossovers] was an astronomical 24-25% of her overall vote (the basis, no doubt, for that very first suggestion Obama was losing the "white" vote; I suspect most of those "whites" were just your average Republican...).