But I did notice that you dodged my question in your belligerence. No matter what criteria the Clintons specify to avoid talking about race--age, size of states won, astrological sign--they are the ones that made this a contest about race. If Obama has won the rank and file and the Clintons manage to take the election with elitist superdelegates, they will need to have the best talking points of their lives. Far better than what Bill managed about Monica.

Rather than cuss me out, why not help them out?

I know it hasn't been working to tell younger voters that the boomers are better prepared to lead, given that the Clinton-Bush generation has led us into a horrible war, the lost of civil liberties, and...the list is long. Clinton has to tell younger voters that she's changed, not "35 years of change," but something on the order of suddenly being born again into a new life of responsibility since last Tuesday.

I'm clueless what the Clintons intend to tell black voters if they steal this election. You're suggesting that they say "it's not about race." Yeah, that will go over big. You're also suggesting something on the lines of "It's for their own good." Ditto.

You can call me an ass, billcap, but you know the Clintons are going to have to come up with some sort of explanation or none of those new voters will take their Clinton-assigned seats on the bus to the polls.

Apparently the Clintons are flushing the condescending Obama-as-veep thing, at least in Mississippi. I guess we'll watch and see.

Caucuses--how many of you have actually participated in one? I think you may have a distorted idea of how they work from the (hostile) media coverage. Most of you would love them, particularly in off years when they can become more issue-oriented. Several issue movements were grounded in caucus participation. (A press misconception that people only caucus around candidates, actually you can usually form groups under any banner.) And despite the media reports, most people at caucuses tend to be older, not younger-- reporters like to hang out in college districts. (Salon reported from around Drake University in Des Moines for example.) Old people often like caucuses because they are much more grounded in community, you see and talk to your neighbors.

Caucuses also lower the threshold for substantive political give and take. Rather than leaving the wheeling and dealing up to party elites, who speak to you through the tube, you wheel and deal yourself.

I'm not saying that primaries don't also have advantages, and perhaps primaries are even better, but most complaints about caucuses come from those who have never participated in one, or from reporters who find them frustrating to cover. It's much easier for reporters to just watch TV and to talk to a few party officials in a primary and nearly impossible to write a story when the action is happening in a thousand tiny precincts.

I think it's fair to say that primary and caucuses may measure different kinds of appeal, and that both types of appeal may be relevant to winning the general election.

That said, primaries make more sense in Michigan and Florida for the do-overs. Mail-in sounds like a good idea to me, if they can pull it off. $18 million is chump change in a country where execs get paid $100 million salaries. Next time the party should either accept the move toward a national primary or penalize states that jump ahead with a decrease in delegates seated, not total disenfranchisement.

"no, actually, they didn't. Obama's supporters, by lambasting Hillary's MLK comment, an historically accurate statement making no racial point whatsoever. And then by claiming the Clinton's, despite decades of personal statements and more importantly actions that showed the opposite, were racists. So yes, you are an ass."

Bill, calm down a moment. Let's say that everything that you are saying is right, and that all Obama supporters are wrong, have gotten the wrong perception. Clinton still needs Obama supporters to win the general. My question still stands, and you continue to avoid it: how do they convince Obama supporters that they played fair? How do the superdelegates change that perception of crooked dealing if they give the nomination to Clinton against the will of the rank and file?

The Clintons and party elites are not really battling McCain for these vital voters in the general, they are battling disillusionment. They are battling the couch, the Wii, the bar stool over the voting booth.

It's a bad political strategy. The Democrats LOSE when they try to win 50.1 to 49.9. They NEED big turnouts.

Voters have hear the insults coming from the Clintons and supporters like you. Now, let's hear what the Clintons actually have to offer Obama voters to get them onto the bus.

/crickets/