A lot of what is written in this article is true but it is still flabbergasting that you could write an article like this without even mentioning the nasty negative campaigning.

If you're going to write an article trying to argue against a prevailing opinion, ie the prolonged campaign is bad for the democrats, you should at least acknowledge the points made in that opinion.

". . . no presidential candidate in modern memory has ever hoisted the white flag at this stage in the campaign with the contest this close. Whether it was Ronald Reagan against Jerry Ford in 1976 or Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter in 1980 or Gary Hart seemingly against the world in 1984, the expectation was that even last-ditch battles would be decided at the convention."

Ford lost in '76, Carter lost in '80, Mondale lost in '84. These prolonged battles for the nomination have not turned out well for the eventual nominee -- and none of them were as close as Obama/Clinton. Political writers may like the good story lines provided by a tight battle for the nomination, but if you're a party activist, a nice bland, settled race is infinitely preferable. McCain gets to sit back and raise money, while all the Republicans who use to complain about what a mediocre candidate he was now get to proclaim what a great statesman he is. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton go negative on each other, and the news coverage will consist of wall to wall coverage of their attacks on each other. Obama and Clinton spend millions attacking one another, while McCain doesn't have to spend a dime. Make no mistake about it, Tuesday night was a great night for John McCain.

Shutting McCain out of the "News" is not good for the Democrats. McCain makes terrible appearances nationally. He may be OK in small groups or in comparison to the right-wing nut jobs but exposure and scrutiny of John McCain will be a real problem for the old, undisciplined, ill-informed defender of unpopular and whacky positions (war, budget, health care...). The Democratic candidate can much more effectly attack McCain than the other Democrat.

I must admit there is a certain sense in this perspective.

Good job!

I feel alot better now. I still don't want Hilary to win. But in essence i think you may be right.

The only worry i have is if HRC - or Obama for that matter- pummel reach other so senseless that everyone decides they are both worthless. Short of that, you have a good point.

That Obama-Clinton just totally start eviscerating McCain immediately. Point at him, criticize, and talk about whatever gosh-darn cool stuff they'll do. That keeps them out of each other's way.

I mean, someone with some influence should suggest this.

I keep hearing about all of this nasty negative campaigning. Where is it? You must not be a student of history because this campaign so far has been handled with kid gloves.

Just wait, it will get real nasty when the general election begins.

It's good to a point, yes. But there's a tipping point here, and it needs to happen before they gut each other.

I was surprised and moved when Hillary mentioned a 'dream ticket' today. I find myself wishing one of them would back off, accept that, and move forward together. It would shock their opponents & be good for all of us.

I prefer Obama, but I wouldn't be set against a Hillary/Obama ticket. I do think she's been so soundly attacked ("Murderer!!!") that the Reps have very little distance available to attack further.

It would be nice. Nice doesn't happen, I know, but my wish stands.

Your assumption is that attention towards the Democratic Party is better than no attention at all. This is only true if the candidates continue to stay amicable to one another. This has only been true up until last week or so. The mud Clinton and Obama will start to throw at each other will begin to lower their overall appeal. They will not seem as noble to the democratic base, the whole country, or the rest of the world. With enough time the mud will stick and may only serve to help McCain.

As for McCain, he will have time to organize, strategize, monotize, and sterilize himself. Time will heal any slights he suffered during the primaries and he can rebrand while the dems throw mud.

Of course all of this may be moot because a day in politics can seem like a lifetime. Recent polls and outcomes of Hillarys campaign have proved that voters can change their minds quickly.

I was at a caucus in Dallas last night. About 100 folks there. It was split exactly even (to the person) between Clinton and Obama.

This is not a bad thing.

There was no acrimony between the two groups. We smiled and waved at each other while the precinct captain was counting the votes. There was a burst of laughter when he announced the split.

Being Texas most of us were just happy to see that so many of our neighbors were Democrats. :)

I caucused for Obama, but I figure Clinton will come out victorious in the end. The icing on the cake will be if Obama is VP. I think Clinton will lean towards that pick because she knows as well as anyone that it'll increase her chances of winning quite a bit. It's the Dream Team.

Let them duke it out, and in the most negative ways they can think of. It's all going to be thrown at them by the Republicans anyway so let's see how they deal with it.

We all know Clinton can take it on and beat it.

On the other hand Obama collapsed after less than a week of the mildest criticism any candidate has ever gotten. Not a good sign for his electability prospects.

In Clinton and Obama, the Democrats have an "embarassment of riches." What the Democrats, and for that matter, the vast majority of the American electorate seem to want, is either an Obama/Clinton ticket or a Clinton/Obama ticket.

The longer the primary voting goes on, the more the two will become "married" to each other.

With the two of them running on the same ticket in November, supporters of both will be able to vote for their candidates.

Meanwhile, the repub "Dream Team" will consist of McCain and . . . who? Mike Huckabee? Sean Hannity? Lynne Cheney? Jeb Bush? James Dobson? Condi Rice?