My good Clinton-supporting Florida friend wrote me this morning that it's "time to rethink all this":

"Clinton has now won NH, NJ, NY, CA, PA, OH, TX , MA, FL, MI, MD - all  the states worth counting and the states we need to win in Nov. .  Now subtract from Obama"s lead all those southern states like SC  and others like KS where the democrats stand no chance in Nov and where do we stand?
 
Time to end the love affair - it just didn't work out - and encourage Obama to accept the second spot on the team.  Team America."

I replied as follows:


"Well, again, we may have to agree to disagree on this as fellow patriotic Americans who want what is best for our country. 
 
First, I no longer am optimistic about Hillary's ability to unify the party should she somehow win the nomination.  Her scorched earth tactics have so severely alienated so many within our party that the chances of that happening are increasingly unlikely as I see it.  I know her supporters say Obama has been no less hard on her.  But I just disagree with that.
 
Second, from the fact that Hillary has won the Democratic primary in these large states, most of which we are going to need to win in the general election, literally nothing follows about whether Obama or McCain wins those states if that is the matchup.  We are going to see a whole lot more polling data rolled out in the coming weeks on how Clinton-McCain, vs. Obama-McCain, plays out in many large and swing states. 
 
Because it is almost inconceivable, from a straight mathematical perspective, that Clinton could head into the convention with a pledged delegate lead over Obama, the Clinton campaign's chances to create any sort of real argument for her candidacy will rest largely on what that data shows--and how strong an argument they can make from it that they are the better choice for the nomination. 
 
That data, posing the direct matchups questions, at least poses the relevant question.  In advance of knowing what it says, though, I want to lay down a marker now by saying that the campaign against McCain has not even begun yet.  And the Republican campaign against either Clinton or Obama is in its early stages, although we can make educated guesses as to what the major themes are likely to be in either case. 
 
So while the polling data in these coming weeks probably should be (and in any case will be) looked at I am not sure what strong conclusions we are likely to be able to draw from it.  

I am taking it as a given that, *if* there were a compelling or strong case that Hillary would have the better chance to beat McCain than Obama, and particularly if the best available data and arguments suggest that she beats McCain and Obama loses to McCain, most ordinary citizen Democrats would want to know that, at least, and would consider it relevant.  (I would.)  I do *not*, however, assume that the most committed supporters of each candidate would be moved by any arguments made by the other side at this point, regardless of what the near-term polling data looks like.  And I don't think that is necessarily an irrational point of view, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, that we have barely seen the beginning of efforts by either side to define the opposition candidate."

Had Obama had a good last month I think my reply would have been simpler, along the following lines: Look, Hillary can't lead in pledged delegates going into the convention.  That's the process and those are the rules.  There is no way of nominating the candidate with fewer pledged delegates that does not lead to a deep split within the party, with untold devastating consequences likely to affect the chances for any sort of progressive change in our country for years to come.  So I hope you'll get behind Obama now.

In any case, if the best available information at this point that becomes available in the coming weeks suggests Hillary wins and Obama loses to McCain, I think under the circumstances I would still come down on nominating Obama assuming, as is almost a sure thing, he enters the convention with a pledged delegate lead, for two reasons. 

First, one doesn't need to be an Obama supporter to believe that the future of the Democratic party and the prospects for progressive change in our country over the next couple of decades can be influenced decisively by how many of the Obama supporters stay engaged after this election cycle.  It's a much younger demographic.  If we nominate the candidate with fewer pledged delegates I fear that much of that energy could well dissipate and the opportunity that lies in front of us could well be squandered for good.  And another opportunity like this may not come along any time soon. 

The argument on the other side on that is easy enough to see and state: the future is now, the differences between Clinton and McCain are large, and a McCain win could lead to a tipping point from which we might find it almost impossible to begin to right our country's course.  So if it looks as though Hillary, and only Hillary, can slay the McCain dragon, we should choose not to enslave ourselves to a nomination process whose first purpose should be to nominate the Democratic candidate with the best chance to win in the fall.

Second, and more fundamentally, though, I am highly skeptical about how strong a case could be made, even in theory, for nominating Clinton on electability grounds based on the direct matchup vs. McCain polls we will see in the large states in the coming weeks, because of where we are in the campaign cycle at this point.  

But I will listen to what both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have to say on that.