the media's trumped up claims, based upon a single poll, that clinton supporters won't support obama in the general, and vice versa, is hooey. this clip illustrates this point. and it shows that the rabid obama supporters who have so infuriated some folks are also a minority, or at least level-headed enough to regain their senses right after the heat of the battle moves on to the war in november. some say that obama is playing the "fear card" by saying that that if hillary doesn't drop out now, mccain will win in november-- which i don't get.

i don't quite see how saying we (dems) might lose to mccain is playing the fear card if it is based on valid strategic considerations such as the following, regardless of the candidate: 1) who is more electable? 2) what are the implications of having a candidate 2 months before the general versus 6-7 months beforehand? and 3) will a prolonged primary drain the enthusiasm of a newly invigorated democratic party (which had been proclaimed dead & buried after the 2004 cycle). fear is a card when it is divorced from reality, used to confuse or or obfuscate, or pinned to one group, party or perspective without reasonable verifiability. issuing threat alerts as political diversion is playing the fear card. intimating that adversaries will cheer one party or candidate over another is playing the fear card. suggesting that if the democrats do not select a candidate quickly (30-60 days) versus 5 months from now is a legitimate analysis based on the criteria above, regardless of which candidate is the beneficiary.

the case for clinton would be 1) she can go toe to toe on experience with mccain and the wright thing makes obama unelectable; 2) mathematically, neither side can actually secure the nomination outright without unrealistic blowouts, so let's decide now-- she has won the big states and swing states, so let's go; 3) folks are getting worn out and things will only get more nit-picky and vicious as the media gets more headline hungry. i've heard many clinton supporters make this argument. obama supporters use the same criteria: 1) he offers a clear contrast to mccain and brings a mass movement behind him; 2) same as above except he has won more states and run well in the big states she has won (including actually winning more delegates in texas); and 3) same as above.

i am an obama supporter who thinks that the race should be called after puerto rico votes in june, and not before, and by called i mean that the superdelegates should make a mass move that makes it clear to whichever candidate that they should withdraw. i am also an obama supporter who would vote for hillary in a hot second, without hesitation. lastly, i am an obama supporter who thinks that the best way to resolve MI and FL would be for the clinton votes to be counted and for obama to get the remaining voters with consent from the other candidates (dodd, edwards, kucinich), and nobody puts the states in the win column. this would seat everybody, and net clinton 100k votes and about 20 delegates. that she broke the rules is irrelevant now (just like whether we should have ever invaded iraq is no longer relevant to our withdrawal strategy); what we need is a solution prior to august 25th. i am confident that it will be resolved mid-june after puerto rico.

all this media driven frenzy about dropping out or staying in, or dems tearing each other apart, would be meaningless if it wasn't so damaging to relationships and the quality of the discourse. folks really need to relax.