...rough times are ahead for the Democrats.

• McCain can go ahead and run for the general while the Democrats tear themselves apart (creating ads McCain can use in the general).
• The scrapping could tarnish the party and spill over into Senate and House races.
• Money that could go to the Senate and House races will continue to be sucked up by the presidential primary (they are having the darnedest time right now).
• Clinton still has a slim chance of winning if you look at the delegate count, unless super delegates start switching or MI and FL are counted -- either situation could depress enthusiasm for her among the newly added portion of the Democratic base. It will be hard for new voters to see their votes get canceled out by party machinations.

As another poster implied, the chances of McCain winning got dramatically better last night.

To those who say a prolonged race is a robust experience in democracy for the states, I say hogwash. Leaving aside the fact that both candidates will now be bloodied coming into the convention, Democratic congressional candidates are hurting for donations big time. True, the GOP is wounded, but that's no reason to rest on our laurels (especially when the Dems can't do jack without 60 votes).

On a separate note, I'd say the only way MI and FL could be counted is if there is a re-vote. To simply base the delegates on the results from crippled races run there, or have the super delegates from those states decide for the voters, could drive a stake through the heart of growing Democratic participation -- especially if doing so makes the difference in a Clinton win.

Your case -- that Clinton cannot be too right-leaning for progressives and also hated by Republicans -- is not logical. Do you like John McCain because he's hated by hard-core wingers? Did the Right like Bill Clinton because he destroyed welfare, pushed through Bush's NAFTA, imprisoned record numbers of African Americans, and put sanctions on Iraq?

Rosenkavalier, you make the mistake of thinking that elections in this country are based on policy. The vast majority of swing voters (which are the only ones Democrats seem to care about) are completely ignorant of history and policy ramifications.

Elections here are more like sports events or American Idol. Your question is as silly as asking: "why do Packers fans hate the Bears? They both rely on defense and live in the Midwest."

Look, I think Fineman is a prick, but his observation is unimpeachable. Is Salon that naive about politics? If Clinton really thought this was ridiculous she would have said: "This is ridiculous. I will campaign against Obama on the issues, but this kind of crap sucks." Instead this was her message: not that I know of. In other words, she refused to condemn people who might be moved by this fear, she just said she had no reason to believe it. That's politics.

Is Clinton gay? "Oh I have no reason to think that, from what I know." Would that be okay Mr. Koppelman?

The media and public have a five-minute memory, and these people are hired to win, not to promote any kind of values or consistency.

You have apples and oranges.

Is Clinton incapable of playing dirty tricks? "Probably not" is about as sure as one can be. Is Obama a secret Muslim? No.

Your argument suggests the only thing that matters is how sure a candidate is about a charge -- regardless of the charge. I think any candidate is capable of dirty tricks. I don't think any candidate is potentially a stealth Muslim.

Would the answer have to be the same if the charges were: 1) will do anything to win; 2) eats babies?

You miss my point.

I would have loved for Clinton to have said: "This is ridiculous. I'll debate Obama on the issues but this is pure crap. And even if he was Muslim -- which he is NOT -- that would make zero difference."

My point was that the Clinton's campaign ability to pull dirty tricks is a far less certain prospect than that Obama is a covert Muslim lying about his faith.

Unless Clinton wins the next primaries by huge and unlikely margins, she will lose the count in delegates that come from voters. The only way she could win in a statistically likely scenario is to get MI and FL votes counted as cast, or through a massive change in super delegates -- either of which would tear the party to pieces and make McCain the winner.

As someone who defends the right of any candidate to run -- including Nader -- I would not ask Clinton to step down (that's her choice alone). But it doesn't do the effort to defeat McCain any good.

What do you think will happen to turnout in November if Obama wins voter delegates and Clinton wins with the help of non-voter delegates? Perhaps you agree with Clinton that McCain will make a better president than Obama.