Ignore the troll.

My question is: When will our candidates figure out that they're being played by the media, trumping up controversies out of what would be otherwise be insignificant issues, exclusively for the purpose of inflating ratings?

I'd like for that day to come. We've already gotten to the point where that sort of media coverage results in scorched-earth elections. Eventually, even the candidates won't be able to derive any significant benefit from the media coverage, particularly as so many other information media develop.

I couldn't disagree more. There is not a zero-sum battle between primary campaigning and general campaigning. The contest keeps Democrats engaged and paying attention, while distracting the media from Republicans' flag pinning, pledge reciting, bland, matching color wearing 24-7 pseudopatriotic pony show.

The primary election lays groundwork for the general. If the nominee had been anointed on Super Tuesday, nobody would've bothered to campaign in Texas or Ohio. Come September, Democrats would've been cobbling together an organization from scratch.

Besides, McCain the campaign finance reformer is up against his spending limit, unless he breaks the campaign finance law. Now is the perfect time for Democrats to reaffirm their support of the Feingold Law, because the other cosponsor wants nothing to do with it.

Professor Taplin:

The post above you by Professor Sleeper bemoans an article in the New Republic about purported race baiting by the Obama campaign. We all know that the article has to be completely untrue because Senator Obama is different and he would never, ever, ever engage in campaign trickery, and none of his staff would do so either. And his name is not Clinon.

But you, on the other hand, a professor who should be subject to journalistic standards, assert that the Clinton campaign engaged in race baiting this week when you assert, without evidence, that the Clinton campaign supplied a photo Senator Obama to Matt Drudge.

I see only one person guilty of race baiting right now, and that person is you. Professor, the fact that this is a blog does not divest you of your responsibility to follow simple rules of credibility, and frankly honor. You have failed.

By the way, here's what another blogger, Bob Somerby, had to say about Josh's decision to jump the gun on Monday and parrot the Obama campaign's knee jerk (could never have been politically calculated because it's the Obama campaign)allegation that the Clinton campaign was in bed with Matt Drudge. . .because Drudge said so.

http://dailyhowler.com/dh022608.shtml

Professor, I think a retraction is in order, or not. But the thing shall speak for itself. Your
move.

Oh and by the way, I voted for Hillary Clinton but I agree with your thesis that she should bow out if she fails to win both Ohio and Texas next week. And I will be Senator Obama if he is the nominee. That doesn't excuse your conduct in accusing the Clinton campaign of bedding down with Matt Drudge.

Hillary has an obligation to her supporters to continue her candidacy to the convention if she has a possible shot at victory or even at winning concessions for herself such as a position in an Obama administration or a senate majority leadership post. She really needs to ignore Obama supporters who call for her to drop out. This is still a close primary and Hillary has a lot of supporters, like me, who should be represented at the convention.

This is a tad disengenuous - they didn't stop campaigning so "ideas could come to the fore", they stopped campaigning because 1., it was too damned hot and 2., it was time to concentrate on amassing enough party ballots to win the nomination. That was harder work than pumping up crowds, in fact, that's when politicians really got down to business.

It wasn't until after 1968 that primary elections and caucuses became the main mechanism for choosing a nominee. In 1980, the last really contentious party convention, Ted Kennedy attempted to peel away Carter's delegates to seize the nomination by floor vote.

For years now, the public has tuned out the conventions, the chief criticism being that "they are coronations, not conventions" and "everything is settled before hand". Now we have perhaps a contested convention and these same people are demanding that a candidate step aside "for the good of the party". (Where did we hear that last? Oh, yes, when Al Gore contested the 2000 election - "he should step down for the good of the country.") If Obama loses Texas and Ohio should he "step down for the good of the party?"

I am thoroughly sick and tired of my fellow democrats blaming a dem. candidate for "a scorched earth policy" and "dirty tricks" in campaigns. Have they been living under rocks for the last fifteen years? Which party has "dirty tricksters who have tv contracts, columns in newspapers and are publicly recognized as "dirty tricksters" and "scorched earthers?" Roger Stone, Karl Rove, Allen Raymond (who has the chutzpah to run a blog here) Steve Schmidt, the swiftboaters to name only a few, and yet we have democrats so foolish and short sighted that they are willing to buy into the crap that the dems are the dirty tricksters and scorched earthers and then pass it on as though it was truth. I'd ask if these people can get any dumber, but I already know the answer.

Okay Jonathan, you've been thoroughly rebuked here in the comments. Any chance you'll answer some of the objections to your post, or are you just here to lecture us?

Excuse my repeated entries, but I just noted that, for whatever reason, the front page of TPM includes once again the earlier versions of the Drudge story from this past Monday. Excluded are the subsequent denials of involvement by the Clinton camp, and included are the initial less than satisfactory denials by the Clinton camp. I don't understand why this material from last Monday is back up, and why it doesn't include the latest versions of the story that set forth the Clinton campaign's assertion that it had nothing to do with the distribution of the Obama photo (an assertion accepted by Senator Obama in Tuesday's debate).

Why?

"Hillary should step down for the sake of the party"

For the sake of Obama you mean, right? I don't see how a prolonged contest which draws constant and extensive media coverage (a lot of it free), and drowns our Republican drivel, can be harmful for the Dems. It is arithmetically obvious that neither candidate can possibly get a required majority with pledged delegates alone, so its obvious that the superdelegates will be tiebreakers , exactly as they have been designed to be - for the sake of the party, BTW.

The delay is harmful to Obama, because his charmed existence as a media darling, who mesmerizes huge crowds of devoted followers and gets applauded for sneezing, is thankfully ending, not a moment too soon. I guess that by mid-May the supers (i.e. Dem elected officials and party executives) will have a better idea of the risks and rewards of HRC vs Obama as the party's standard-bearer, and would be able to make more intelligent choice. If Obama's bubble doesn't burst by then (which means that he'll succeed in the late primaries as well as in the early ones)– more power to him, and good luck in November. The supers are dependent themselves on having a better candidate at the top of the ticket, and will not act to harm their own chances. If the bubble will burst – Dem party will be better off for HRC staying in the race.

A popular argument - what's democratic (small d) about that - is easily rebuffed by 2 points:
1. Most supers are democratically elected
2. They matter only as tie-breakers for more or less tied election.

Jon Taplin: "but I tend to like a little civility in the dialogue......
If you really want Obama to spend millions of dollars fighting Hillary for the next two months when its mathematically impossible for her to win, then my guess is you are rooting for John McCain."

So Jon, where is your civility then? I'm rooting for a good Democratic administration, hence for Hillary (that's IMHO of course). It's mathematically impossible for either of them to win without superdelegates, and quite possible for either to win with superdelegates. I happen to believe that Hillary has much better chance of beating McCain, but I don't ascribe underhanded motives to you, i.e. I don't say that you root for Obama against Hillary just like Kristol, Novak, Morris, Brooks, Mathews, Noonan, Rove, etc. in order to assure Republican win in November.

I would argue that the coordinated attacks on Obama yesterday from McCain, the RNC and George Bush are proof that they would much rather run against Hillary. If they really thought Obama was the easier candidate to beat, they would keep quiet until he had sewn up the nomination.

You know what the difference between a Canadian Liberal and an American Liberal is.

The American liberal just can't wait to surrender. It's all he thinks about. Surrender and self sacrifice for the good of all. The highest virtue is giving up. Al Gore surrenders in 2000 for the good of the nation. Lieberman surrenders in 2000 because he loves the Republicans. John Kerry surrenders in 2004, after all his 'count every vote' talk. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid surrender in congress every chance they get, day after day... for the good of the country, or so the media won't think badly of them. And now Hillary should 'surrender for the good of the party.'

I'm not a fan of Hillary. And I have my doubts about Obama. I'm not sure that either of them have the guts to be what America needs. On the other hand, either of them are miles better than the geriatric madman.

This whole notion that the two of them shouldn't battle it out is absurd. Coronations haven't done the Democratic party any good. Let's face it - John Kerry was a coronation, how'd that turn out? Al Gore's coronation as the nominee... did that work out well?

As long as Obama and Hillary are contesting each other, the media is paying attention to the Democrats. McCain can wallow around in his own pool of growing scandals, there's nothing else to talk about with McCain.

But while Hillary and Obama are going at it... Democrats ideas and Democrats policies are front and center. Its about people, not scandals, judgement, not mistakes.

People love a contest. I don't know why these passive aggressive surrender-monkey american liberals are so terrified. Let there be a contest, and let the best black man or white woman win.