A fair piece, Joan, but the conclusion seems a little unsound:

""Unless the Obama-Clinton contest turns far nastier than it has already, or ends in a way that seems demonstrably unfair to a portion of the Democratic electorate, the Democrats should benefit from this competition.""

Is there any reason to believe it won't turn far nastier?

Clinton's "kitchen sink" has been wratcheted up to "knee-capping" and "back-breaking," right?

Is there any reason not to presume that Clinton will not, in fact, become even nastier?

"The Rev. Wright is a bigot, anti-American, anti-gay and anti-white."

Evidence, please?

"Obama has no business running for president knowing he sat through these so called sermons for twenty years."

Why not?

"The GOP will go to the lack of patriotism for not saluting the flag or for refusing to wear a flag pin on his lapel."

Par for the course. If that outweighs the fact that the Republican party has led us to the brink of ruination, then what can I say, we get the government we deserve.

"I am a Democrat and I have serious concerns about Obama which his slick speech has not addressed."

Such as?

"Obama's speech mearly diverted attention away from him and put the onus on us."

Come again?

"I guess the privileged man educated at Harvard knows little about the suffering of REAL African Americans."

What? Can you elaborate on the resentment you express here?

"I will take 100 Hillarys to 1 Obama. Sad no one questions that. Oh that's right, race is too sensitive, but being sexist is somehow OK. Not in my world!!"

What?

What in God's name are you talking about?

Can you maybe focus on one of those thoughts so we can have a real engagement? As it is, your thoughts are all over the place and leave little room for dialogue.

Thanks! I never know how to spot a troll from the merely ignorant.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, as a rule.

Not at all.

I wouldn't overstate the case, though, because I do believe that deep down, Hillary was once a good person and that her heart is in the right place.

I see her as an object lesson in how one can become one's enemy by appropriating their methods.

She fell into the trap of fighting fire with fire without considering what that might do to her integrity.

But that clip yesterday of her snapping, in the smuggest, most defiant way possible, "I mispoke, deal with it" (or whatever she said) spoke volumes.

That was a classic Bush response to criticism.

Entrench yourself in your own myopic hubris.

That's not the kind of character trait I'm looking for in the person who would answer that 3am phone call.

In fact, I find it profoundly disturbing.

Is there any reason to believe that the siege mentality with which she wages her campaign won't translate into foreign policy issues?

(Not a rhetorical question.)

Well said. I'd have said it without the sarcasm, myself, but all your points are spot on.

I don't know if you responding to me, or in part to me, but if you go back and read my remarks, I think you'll find your response to be a non-sequitur.

I'm not talking about biography, I'm talking about basic philosophical differences regarding how politics is to be practiced, how voters are to be appealed to, how challenges are to be responded to, etc.

The two really represent two radically different political ethoses.

Your pointing to the fact that they both have ivy league educations, etc., is not germane to my argument.

I agree they are both politicians and that of course, Obama will display some of the uglier features that go with the territory.

But to me, it is a question of degree.

One of the concrete examples I used was the Clintons' apparent ethos of cronyism or loyalty, as evidenced by Carville's "Judas" remark.

I've seen nothing so far to suggest this is the operative ethos of the Obama camp.

This is important to me because I believe that this very ethos has had catastrophic effects in the Bush administration. The fact that it seems to be operative in the Clinton campaign to is cause for concern, wouldn't you agree?--especially given that she has criticized Bush for his cronyism.

So is it cronyism per se that Clinton repudiates, or just Bush's cronyism?

Do you have any thoughts about that?

"To beat Obama's pledged delegate count. This is simply impossible. Even Huckabee got 33% of the vote in remaining contests."

Nearly impossible.

It's possible if Clinton can totally discredit Obama not just as a candidate, but as a human being.

That's her only chance and that's how she wants to go out.

Thank you!

What's dismaying, though, is that Clinton supporters never (or rarely) respond to my comments.

I'm really curious as to what they think.

And since the last thing I want to be is intellectually lazy or blindly ideological, I'm open to anyone adducing evidence that my analysis is flawed.

But I just hear silence.

Those who do respond to me do so mostly with non-sequiturs, refusing to actually engage.

I really want real dialogue here, not talk radio-style: "Fuck you!"--"No, fuck YOU!"

That's the real shame of it all, that substantive discussion is so hard to have.