I don't think the DCCC Pelosi 20 thing is anything at all but a momentary burst of steam on both sides.

I'm less interested in the Hillary v. Obama aspect of the dispute and more interested in the fact that a few bigshots get to a wave a large carrot and stick around. Their interests may or may not agree with ours. So I think if Pelosi can tell them to pound sand and get enough replacement $$$ from small donors, I think we're better off long term. Fund raising might permanently change after this election.

I agree with you about Penn. What's up with him?

"I think Obama managed this part of the campaign much better than Hillary, certainly through February, and this has been underappreciated. It also concerns me about Hillary, since she's running on experience and readiness and been there done that.The funding point is interesting given the stress between the Pelosi and the DCCC and the gang of 20. Once again, not mentioned much here. If it continues to be cost effective to raise large amounts of money from lots of small contributions, then a big seismic shift in politics may be underway. That could be a really cool Salon story. Probably wouldn't get many page hits, it doesn't have an obvious Hillary or Obama angle to it."

I definitely think Obama has managed his campaign better (I've never, ever been a fan of Penn going way back). I think he managed fund raising better, organizing better, and took near-perfect advantage of some built-in advantages in the process.

I don't think the DCCC Pelosi 20 thing is anything at all but a momentary burst of steam on both sides. Though I think this is another reason calls for Hillary to drop out are silly. The money you'd save in not having to run against her (though why if you're "inevitable" you have to advertise/run I'm not quite clear on) might be washed out by the money you lose out on by insulting/dismissing/pissing off all her supporters--a substantial number of people and a substantial source of funding

. I actually like Dean's suggestion. Let everyone express their voice by letting everyone vote, take two weeks to think it through or at the very least offer up a respectful facade of thinking it through, have all the SD's declare, and then I think the vast majority of the party will unify no matter what happens, though I assume it will be Obama. I just can't see any real high ground argument that begins with "stop the voting". Especially coming from a Democrat.

Well, I agree with much of what you are saying, except for the fact that in the middle of a well fought contest it's probably unrealistic to expect the hard-core supporters on either side to remain rational. And I'm assuming that the more politically active are posting here. I stepped in because I didn't understand what you were saying.

I've definitely posted here about Obama's money advantage. I know few people discuss fund raising on either side, maybe that's too nuts and bolts or inside baseball, than the "personality" side. Dean, for all his faults, started the grass roots internet funding, and Obama has improved upon it. I think Obama managed this part of the campaign much better than Hillary, certainly through February, and this has been underappreciated. It also concerns me about Hillary, since she's running on experience and readiness and been there done that.

The funding point is interesting given the stress between the Pelosi and the DCCC and the gang of 20. Once again, not mentioned much here.

If it continues to be cost effective to raise large amounts of money from lots of small contributions, then a big seismic shift in politics may be underway. That could be a really cool Salon story. Probably wouldn't get many page hits, it doesn't have an obvious Hillary or Obama angle to it.

"Once again, I suppose it depends what is being measured, apples or tricycles. I'll now introduce a lemon. Around this time last year, Hillary had a monster lead in the polls. Obama wasn't really on the radar. So there has definitely been a large swing in public opinion in order for Obama to come out ahead by 3%(ish) in popular vote (subject to the endless stuff we've talked about)."

First, I don't in any way diminish Obama's achievement. Or dispute it. I just do not understand the inability to do the same for Hillary. Of course she had a monster lead before all this started--it was all name recognition. It's simple logic. Obama had almost nowhere to go but up and she had almost nowhere to go but down, being far and away the best know person running--in other words, she wasn't going to change a lot of minds. Which is why I actually thought she shouldn't have run and would have preferred she hadn't. He had to come up. His great achievement is that he surpassed his inevitable rise to the position he is in now.

"Personally, I don't really care that much. I don't consider myself in the tank for Obama, and I don't recall making any tsunami speeches. Last year this time I wanted to see what Richardson could do. I thought Obama looked interesting, but a lightweight and that Hillary would crush him."

But I've never accused you of making tsunami speeches. You stepped into a dispute between me and people who were making tsunami speeches. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to recognize simple reality. As far as "in the tank" for someone. As mentioned, I preferred Hillary not run. I never thought she would "crush" anybody but always figured she would have a long, long fight where she'd barely win and then either barely win or barely lose a general. Her potential swings were just too small. She was neither my first nor second choice. I liked Biden followed by Richardson (though he sorely disappointed me in debates and campaigning). Hillary was my third choice and Obama my fourth. I began by sending money to all four, then just to Biden Hillary and Obama, then to HIllary and Obama, and a month ago I split my delegates here in NY between Hillary and Obama, giving her a majority but not all of them. Which makes me, I'm guessing, much more objective than most here when discussing the two.

"Hillary and Obama did not start the contest from the same line. She was way ahead in funding, establishment buyin and national name brand recognition. It's significant to overcome all that in a contest and be ahead at this point. I can see how some people could get carried away by that."

All of that disappeared relatively quickly. Remember she was actually outspent in the first contest by Obama (something that never gets mentioned by Obama people as if Obama doesn't actually soil his hands with money) And "carried away" is fine for a moment, but let's be reasoned adults here. You get "carried away" then you accept and acknowledge facts. Otherwise, don't complain when people say you (generic you) have "drunk the kool-aid" or are "naive" or some similar point, because if your excuse is you get the facts wrong consistently because you're always "carried away", then, well, you've drunk the kool-aid by definition.

"And in politics, we are rarely concerned with things being wholly rejected or not. A plurality has to suffice."

Now you've added a T-Rex. Again, no argument on what we "need" or "employ". But don't cal it what it isn't. Why is it so hard to simply state a fact. And if it is that hard for you (again, generic you) don't ask me to take anything you say seriously. Obama and Hillary have been roughly equally chosen and rejected within the Democratic primaries. I say grow up and step up and just say it. It's like sitcoms where the character, and there's always one, who never apologizes somehow is faced with a situation where they have to and they stutter through "I'mmmm ssss . . . . I'mmmm soorr . . . . I'mmm surr . . I'mmm swerr . . " contorting their face and body as they do so. I'd offer a specific example, but that would just date me so horribly. Oh wait, guess I should grow up and step up and just say it--The Fonz. I now hang my head in forum shame and slink away . . .