I am a strong Obama supporter but I think there could be something to be said for Joan's idea that Clinton should not withdraw - provided, "the two candidates don't bloody themselves."

Regardless of who the Democratic nominee is the general election will be UGLY and Republicans will fight dirty.

Can't you just hear Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter saying "Barack Hussein Osama, oops, I meant Obama," or Republicans recycling all the junk they threw at both Hillary and Bill in the 1990s and both Obama and Clinton would be the targets of kind of junk they threw at Kerry in 2004 - Swiftboat, flip-flopping, etc. Racism or sexism - subtle or not - will be a factor as well.

Democrats must enter the gneral election in as strong a position as possible. If both campaigns keep it civil and restrained, can keep the American people focused on the issues, especially the ones they care about most (the economy and health care), the better off the Democrats are in the long run. This is especially true if both Obama and Clinton shift the focus away from the (relatively) minor policy differences between Democratic contenders towards the MAJOR differences between Democrats and Republicans.

One hopes that Democrats are already looking to the general election: laying the foundation for a unified party and devising a strategy to defeat the Republican nominee in the general election. A strategy that addresses both the issues and the dirty tactics the Democratic nominee will face.

Republicans will, as they did in 2004, run on fear. Democrats will (and should) run on the economy and other "domestic" issues while at the same time countering Republican fear-mongering and the notion that Democrats are weak on national security, they are the party of "cut and run."

Democrats need to point out the absurdity of McCain's saying we should stay in Iraq for "100 years." They should ask the very serious questions of how that would effect our military readiness in other areas of the world and who foots the bill? And they should ask the American people how long they are willing to stay in Iraq (the answer would be nowhere close to 100 years!)

Democrats should ask why we abandoned Afghanistan after achieving military victory there. Why we did not stick around to help re-build that country? Remind the American people that our abandonment has caused the resurgence of the Taliban, the very people who spawned bin Laden, et al.

Democrats must convincingly make the case that, although the surge has had some impact on the situation in Iraq (this takes the wind out of their sails when they say we are in denial about the success of the surge) that impact is not nearly enough to solve the problem that is Iraq.

There will never be a military solution in Iraq (unless McCain is elected and we spend the next century there - that is no "solution"), if we are to fix Iraq there must be, among other things, engagement with the rest of the world, diplomacy, and we must re-build Iraq's infra-structure (kick out all the corrupt U.S. contractors!). The American people are smart enough to understand this.

As far as mudslinging, Democrats must have a strategy to immediately counter Republican dirty campaign tactics, to meet each and every attack head-on (even if only to dismiss as absurd). Too much is at stake in 2008 to allow the Democratic nominee to be "Swiftboated" as in 2004.

I think I agree with what you say. Maybe I was engaging in wishful thinking: I took the caveat in the article (Clinton shouldn't withdraw "as long as the candidates don't bloody themselves") and saw in it a possibility of a positive outcome for the Democrats - if Clinton and Obama could start acting as two candidates who basically share a common cause, rather than adversarsies - they could "double team" the Republicans until the convention by both acting as strong advocates for the cause - I guess acting more like running mates.

But maybe what they say about Obama supporters is true - we're delusional. And here it is my delusion to think that Clinton won't fight to the bitter end as long as she sees a chance to ultimately prevail (hoping that she can pick up, if not win(s), enough delegates in OH and/or TX to supplement the superdelegates whose support she counts on and her attempts to seat FL and MI delegates she "won").

But if the party could be unified now rather than after the convention, the Dems will enter the general election with a lot of momentum (the Republicans are essentially united - if only by their common hatred of the NYT - which is a pretty pitiful basis for unity). If it is not unified then, all hope of defeating McCain could be lost. Because, as I said in first post, the general election will not be pretty and the Republicans will play dirty - as only they can. Truly, too much is at stake to let that happen. So, maybe the dream is Clinton steps aside gracefully and, along with all the other former candidates, gives her support to Obama.